Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "ERIC ED556901: The Condition of Education 2015. NCES 2015-144"

See other formats


The Condition 
of Education 

2015 



NCES 2015-144 


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 





The Condition of Education 2015 


MAY 2015 

Grace Kena 
Lauren Musu-Gillette 
Jennifer Robinson 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Xiaolei Wang 
Amy Rathbun 
Jijun Zhang 

Sidney Wilkinson-Flicker 

American Institutes for Research 

Amy Barmer 
Erin Dunlop Velez 

RTI International 

Thomas Nachazel 

Senior Editor 

Allison Dziuba 
Wyatt Smith 

Editors 

American Institutes for Research 

Victoria Nelson 
Virginia Robles-Villalba 
William Soo 
DeLicia Ballard 

Produotion Managers 
Synergy Enterprises, Inc. 


NOES 2015-144 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 



NATIONAL CENTER for 
EDUCATION STATISTICS 


Institute of Education Sciences 


U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 
Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Sue Betka 
Acting Director 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Peggy G. Carr 
Acting Commissioner 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and 
reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, 
collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct 
and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local 
education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign 
countries. 

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, 
and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. 
Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the 
general public. Unless specifically noted all information contained herein is in the public domain. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of 
audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have 
any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please 
direct your comments to 

NCES, lES, U.S. Department of Education 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006-5651 


May 2015 

The NCES Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov . 

The NCES Publications and Products address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch . 

This publication is only available online. To download, view, and print the report as a PDF file, go to the NCES 
Publications and Products address shown above. 

This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-IES-12-D-0002 
with American Institutes for Research. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply 
endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Suggested Citation 

Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Barmer, A., 
and Dunlop Velez, E. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). U.S. Department of Education, 
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved [date] from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch . 

Content Contact 

Grace Kena 
(202) 502-7888 
grace.kena@ed.gov 





NATIONAL CENTER for 
EDUCATION STATISTICS 


Institute of Education Sciences 


Letter From the 

Commissioner of the 

National Center for Education Statistics 

May 2015 

The U.S. Congress has mandated that the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) produce an annual report 
to help inform policymakers about the progress of education in the United States. Using data from across the center 
and from other sources of education data, The Condition of Education 2015 presents 42 key indicators on important 
topics and trends in U.S. education. These indicators focus on population characteristics, such as educational 
attainment and economic outcomes, participation in education at all levels, as well as aspects of elementary, secondary, 
and postsecondary education, including international comparisons. New to the report this year are three spotlight 
indicators that describe approaches to learning behaviors for first-time kindergartners, disparities in educational 
outcomes among male youth of color, and differences in postsecondary degree completion by socioeconomic status. 
This report also includes a new feature — The At a Glance — that allows readers to quickly make comparisons within 
and across indicators. 

This year’s Condition shows that 91 percent of young adults ages 25 to 29 had a high school diploma or its equivalent 
in 2014, and that 34 percent had a bachelor’s or higher degree. As in previous years, median earnings were higher for 
25- to 34-year-olds with higher levels of education in 2013. Also, in 2014, the unemployment rate was generally lower 
for those with higher levels of education. 

One in five school-age children lived in poverty in 2013, up from about one in seven in 2000. Sixty-five percent of 

3- to 5-year-olds were enrolled in preschool in 2013, which is about the same as in the previous year. About 60 percent 
of these preschool children attended full-day programs. In the fall of 2012, nearly 50 million students were enrolled in 
public schools — over 2 million of whom were in charter schools. Postsecondary enrollment was at 20 million students 
in the fall of 2013, including 17 million undergraduate and 3 million graduate students. 

In school year 2011-12, some 3.1 million public high school students, or 81 percent, graduated on time with a regular 
diploma. Sixty-six percent of 2013 high school completers enrolled in college the following fall: 42 percent went to 

4- year institutions and 24 percent went to 2-year institutions. Meanwhile, the status dropout rate, or the percentage of 
16- to 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and do not have a high school credential, declined from 11 percent 
in 2000 to 7 percent in 2013. 

At public and private nonprofit 4-year colleges, most of the full-time undergraduates (88 and 86 percent, respectively) 
were under the age of 25 in the fall of 2013, compared with only 30 percent of full-time students at private for-profit 
colleges. About 56 percent of male students and 62 percent of female students who began their bachelor’s degree in 
the fall of 2007, and did not transfer, had completed their degree within six years. In 2013, over 1 million associate’s 
degrees, over 1.8 million bachelor’s degrees, and over 750,000 master’s degrees were awarded. 

As new data are released, the indicators will be updated on The Condition of Education website. In addition, NCES 
produces a wide range of reports and data to help inform policymakers and the American public about trends and 
conditions in U.S. education. 



Acting Commissioner 

National Center for Education Statistics 


Letter From the Commissioner iii 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Reader's Guide 

The Condition of Education is available on the National 
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) website as a full 
pdf of this volume for 2015, as individual pdfs, in html, 
and on the NCES mobile website ( http://nces.ed.gov/ 
mobile) . Individual pdfs and html files are updated 
throughout the year as new data become available. 

All reference tables are hyperlinked within the html 
versions, as are the sources for each of the graphics. The 
reference tables can generally be found in other NCES 
publications — primarily the Digest of Education Statistics. 

Data Sources and Estimates 

The data in these indicators were obtained from many 
different sources — including students and teachers, state 
education agencies, local elementary and secondary 
schools, and colleges and universities — using surveys and 
compilations of administrative records. Users should be 
cautious when comparing data from different sources. 
Differences in aspects such as procedures, timing, 
question phrasing, and interviewer training can affect the 
comparability of results across data sources. 

Most indicators summarize data from surveys conducted 
by NCES or by the Census Bureau with support from 
NCES. Brief explanations of the major NCES surveys 
used in these indicators can be found in the Guide to 
Sources ( http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/sources.asp) . 
More detailed explanations can be obtained on the 
NCES website ( http://nces.ed.gov ) under “Surveys and 
Programs.” 

The Guide to Sources also includes information on 
non-NCES sources used to compile indicators, such as 
the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current 
Population Survey (CPS). These are Census Bureau 
surveys used extensively in the indicators. For further 
details on the ACS, see http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ . 
For further details on the CPS, see http://www.census. 
gov/cps/ . 

Data for indicators are obtained primarily from two 
types of surveys: universe surveys and sample surveys. 

In universe surveys, information is collected from every 
member of the population. For example, in a survey 
regarding certain expenditures of public elementary 
and secondary schools, data would be obtained from 
each school district in the United States. When data 
from an entire population are available, estimates of the 
total population or a subpopulation are made by simply 
summing the units in the population or subpopulation. 

As a result, there is no sampling error, and observed 
differences are reported as true. 

Since a universe survey is often expensive and time 
consuming, many surveys collect data from a sample of 
the population of interest (sample survey). For example. 


the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 
assesses a representative sample of students rather than 
the entire population of students. When a sample survey 
is used, statistical uncertainty is introduced, because the 
data come from only a portion of the entire population. 
This statistical uncertainty must be considered when 
reporting estimates and making comparisons. 

Various types of statistics derived from universe and 
sample surveys are reported in the indicators. Many 
indicators report the size of a population or a 
subpopulation, and often the size of a subpopulation 
is expressed as a percentage of the total population. 

In addition, the average (or mean) value of some 
characteristic of the population or subpopulation may 
be reported. The average is obtained by summing the 
values for all members of the population and dividing 
the sum by the size of the population. An example is 
the annual average salaries of full-time instructional 
faculty at degree-granting postsecondary institutions. 
Another measure that is sometimes used is the median. 
The median is the midpoint value of a characteristic at or 
above which 50 percent of the population is estimated to 
fall, and at or below which 50 percent of the population 
is estimated to fall. An example is the median annual 
earnings of young adults who are full-time, full-year 
wage and salary workers. 

Standard Errors 

Using estimates calculated from data based on a sample 
of the population requires consideration of several factors 
before the estimates become meaningful. When using 
data from a sample, some margin of error will always 
be present in estimations of characteristics of the total 
population or subpopulation because the data are available 
from only a portion of the total population. Consequently, 
data from samples can provide only an approximation 
of the true or actual value. The margin of error of an 
estimate, or the range of potential true or actual values, 
depends on several factors such as the amount of variation 
in the responses, the size and representativeness of the 
sample, and the size of the subgroup for which the 
estimate is computed. The magnitude of this margin of 
error is measured by what statisticians call the “standard 
error” of an estimate. 

When data from sample surveys are reported, the standard 
error is calculated for each estimate. The standard errors 
for all estimated totals, means, medians, or percentages 
are reported in the reference tables. 

In order to caution the reader when interpreting findings 
in the indicators, estimates from sample surveys are 
flagged with a “!” when the standard error is between 30 
and 50 percent of the estimate, and suppressed with a “$” 
when the standard error is 50 percent of the estimate or 
greater. 


Reader’s Guide v 


Data Analysis and Interpretation 

When estimates are from a sample, caution is warranted 
when drawing conclusions about one estimate in 
comparison to another, or about whether a time series 
of estimates is increasing, decreasing, or staying the 
same. Although one estimate may appear to be larger 
than another, a statistical test may find that the apparent 
difference between them is not reliably measurable due 
to the uncertainty around the estimates. In this case, 
the estimates will be described as having no measurable 
dijference, meaning that the difference between them is 
not statistically significant. 

Whether differences in means or percentages are 
statistically significant can be determined using the 
standard errors of the estimates. In these indicators and 
other reports produced by NCES, when differences are 
statistically significant, the probability that the difference 
occurred by chance is less than 5 percent, according to 
NCES standards. 

Data presented in the indicators do not investigate more 
complex hypotheses, account for interrelationships among 
variables, or support causal inferences. We encourage 
readers who are interested in more complex questions 
and in-depth analysis to explore other NCES resources, 
including publications, online data tools, and public- and 
restricted-use datasets at http://nces.ed.gov . 

For all indicators that report estimates based on samples, 
differences between estimates (including increases and 
decreases) are stated only when they are statistically 
significant. To determine whether differences reported 
are statistically significant, two-tailed t tests at the .05 
level are typically used. The t test formula for determining 
statistical significance is adjusted when the samples 
being compared are dependent. The t test formula is not 
adjusted for multiple comparisons, with the exception 
of statistical tests conducted using the NAEP Data 
Explorer ( http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/ 
database/data tool. asp) . When the variables to be tested 
are postulated to form a trend, the relationship may 
be tested using linear regression, logistic regression, or 
ANOVA trend analysis instead of a series of t tests. These 
alternate methods of analysis test for specific relationships 
(e.g., linear, quadratic, or cubic) among variables. For 
more information on data analysis, please see the NCES 
Statistical Standards, Standard 5-1, available at 
https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/2Q12/pdf/Chapter5.pdf . 

A number of considerations influence the ultimate 
selection of the data years to feature in the indicators. 

To make analyses as timely as possible, the latest year 
of available data is shown. The choice of comparison 


years is often also based on the need to show the earliest 
available survey year, as in the case of the NAEP and 
the international assessment surveys. In the case of 
surveys with long time frames, such as surveys measuring 
enrollment, the decade’s beginning year (e.g., 1980 or 
1990) often starts the trend line. In the figures and 
tables of the indicators, intervening years are selected 
in increments in order to show the general trend. The 
narrative for the indicators typically compares the most 
current year’s data with those from the initial year and 
then with those from a more recent period. Where 
applicable, the narrative may also note years in which the 
data begin to diverge from previous trends. 

Rounding and Other Considerations 

All calculations within the indicators are based on 
unrounded estimates. Therefore, the reader may find that 
a calculation, such as a difference or a percentage change, 
cited in the text or figure may not be identical to the 
calculation obtained by using the rounded values shown 
in the accompanying tables. Although values reported 
in the reference tables are generally rounded to one 
decimal place (e.g., 76.5 percent), values reported in each 
indicator are generally rounded to whole numbers (with 
any value of 0.50 or above rounded to the next highest 
whole number). Due to rounding, cumulative percentages 
may sometimes equal 99 or 101 percent rather than 
100 percent. 

Race and Ethnicity 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is 
responsible for the standards that govern the categories 
used to collect and present federal data on race and 
ethnicity. The OMB revised the guidelines on racial/ 
ethnic categories used by the federal government 
in October 1997, with a January 2003 deadline for 
implementation. The revised standards require a minimum 
of these five categories for data on race: American Indian 
or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. 

The standards also require the collection of data on the 
ethnicity categories Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic 
or Latino. It is important to note that Hispanic origin is 
an ethnicity rather than a race, and therefore persons of 
Hispanic origin may be of any race. Origin can be viewed 
as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of 
birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors 
before their arrival in the United States. The race categories 
White, Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 
Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Native, as 
presented in these indicators, exclude persons of Hispanic 
origin unless noted otherwise. 


vi The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


The categories are defined as follows: 

• American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having 
origins in any of the original peoples of North 
and South America (including Central America) 
and maintaining tribal affiliation or community 
attachment. 

• Asian: A person having origins in any of the original 
peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian 
subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, 
China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the 
Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. 

• Black or African American: A person having origins in 
any of the black racial groups of Africa. 

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person 
having origins in any of the original peoples of 
Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. 

• White: A person having origins in any of the original 
peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. 

• Hispanic or Latino: A person of Mexican, Puerto 
Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other 
Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. 

Within these indicators, some of the category labels have 
been shortened in the text, tables, and figures. American 
Indian or Alaska Native is denoted as American Indian/ 
Alaska Native (except when separate estimates are 
available for American Indians alone or Alaska Natives 
alone); Black or African American is shortened to 
Black; and Hispanic or Latino is shortened to Hispanic. 
When discussed separately from Asian estimates. Native 
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander is shortened to 
Pacific Islander. 

The indicators draw from a number of different sources. 
Many are federal surveys that collect data using the 
OMB standards for racial/ethnic classification described 
above; however, some sources have not fully adopted the 
standards, and some indicators include data collected 
prior to the adoption of the OMB standards. This report 
focuses on the six categories that are the most common 
among the various data sources used: White, Black, 
Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, and American Indian/ 
Alaska Native. Asians and Pacific Islanders are combined 
into one category in indicators for which the data were 
not collected separately for the two groups, or to preserve 
continuity in trend analyses even in cases where separate 
data collection was possible in the more recent data years. 

Some of the surveys from which data are presented in 
these indicators give respondents the option of selecting 
either an “other” race category, a “Two or more races” 
or “multiracial” category, or both. Where possible, 
indicators present data on the “Two or more races” 
category; however, in some cases this category may not 
be separately shown because the information was not 


collected or due to other data issues. The “other” category 
is not separately shown. Any comparisons made between 
persons of one racial/ethnic group to “all other racial/ 
ethnic groups” include only the racial/ethnic groups 
shown in the indicator. In some surveys, respondents are 
not given the option to select more than one race. In these 
surveys, respondents of Two or more races must select 
a single race category. Any comparisons between data 
from surveys that give the option to select more than one 
race and surveys that do not offer such an option should 
take into account the fact that there is a potential for 
bias if members of one racial group are more likely than 
members of the others to identify themselves as “Two or 
more races.”' For postsecondary data, foreign students are 
counted separately and are therefore not included in any 
racial/ethnic category. 

The American Community Survey (ACS), conducted by 
the U.S. Census Bureau, collects information regarding 
specific racial/ethnic ancestry. Selected indicators include 
Hispanic ancestry subgroups (such as Mexican, Puerto 
Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Salvadoran, Other Central 
American, and South American) and Asian ancestry 
subgroups (such as Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, 
Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese). In addition, selected 
indicators include “Two or more races” subgroups (such 
as White and Black, White and Asian, and White and 
American Indian/Alaska Native). 

For more information on the ACS, see the Guide to 
Sources ( http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/sources.asp ). 

For more information on race/ethnicity, see the Glossary 
( http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossarv.asp ). 

Limitations of the Data 

The relatively small sizes of the American Indian/Alaska 
Native and Pacific Islander populations pose many 
measurement difficulties when conducting statistical 
analysis. Even in larger surveys, the numbers of American 
Indians/Alaska Natives and Pacific Islanders included 
in a sample are often small. Researchers studying data 
on these two populations often face small sample sizes 
that reduce the reliability of results. Survey data for 
American Indians/Alaska Natives often have somewhat 
higher standard errors than data for other racial/ethnic 
groups. Due to large standard errors, differences that 
seem substantial are often not statistically significant and, 
therefore, not cited in the text. 

' Such bias was found by a National Center for Health Statistics 
study that examined race/ethnicity responses to the 2000 
Census. This study found, for example, that as the percentage of 
multiple-race respondents in a county increased, the likelihood of 
respondents stating Black as their primary race increased among 
Black/ White respondents but decreased among American Indian 
or Alaska Native/Black respondents. See Parker, J. et al. (2004). 
Bridging Between Two Standards for Collecting Information 
on Race and Ethnicity: An Application to Census 2000 and 
Vital Rates. Public Health Reports, 119{2)\ 192-205. Available 
through http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender. 

fcgi?artid=1497618 . 


Reader’s Guide vii 


Data on American Indians/Alaska Natives are often 
subject to inaccuracies that can result from respondents 
self-identifying their race/ethnicity. According to research 
on the collection of race/ethnicity data conducted by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1995, the categorization of 
American Indian and Alaska Native is the least stable self- 
identification. The racial/ethnic categories presented to a 
respondent, and the way in which the question is asked, 
can infiuence the response, especially for individuals who 
consider themselves of mixed race or ethnicity. These 
data limitations should be kept in mind when reading 
this report. 

As mentioned above, Asians and Pacific Islanders are 
combined into one category in indicators for which the 
data were not collected separately for the two groups. 

The combined category can sometimes mask significant 
differences between subgroups. For example, prior to 
2011, the National Assessment of Educational Progress 
(NAEP) collected data that did not allow for separate 
reporting of estimates for Asians and Pacific Islanders. 
Information from Digest of Education Statistics, 2014 
(table 101.20), based on the Census Bureau Current 
Population Reports, indicates that 96 percent of all 
Asian/Pacific Islander 5- to 24-year-olds are Asian. This 
combined category for Asians/Pacific Islanders is more 
representative of Asians than Pacific Islanders. 


Symbols 

In accordance with the NCES Statistical Standards, many 
tables in this volume use a series of symbols to alert the 
reader to special statistical notes. These symbols, and their 
meanings, are as follows: 

— Not available. 

t Not applicable. 

# Rounds to zero. 

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation 
(CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

$ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few 
cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation 
(CV) for this estimate is 50 percent or greater. 

* p < .05 Significance level. 


viii The Condition of Education 2015 


Contents 


Page 


Letter From the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics iii 

Reader’s Guide v 

The Condition of Education 2015 At a Glance xxi 

Highlights From The Condition of Education 2015 xxix 

Spotlights 1 

Kindergartners’ Approaches to Learning Behaviors and Academic Outcomes 2 

Figure 1. Average Approaches to Learning scores of first-time kindergartners, by sex, age at kindergarten 

entry, and race/ethnicity: Fall 2010 3 

Figure 2. Average Approaches to Learning scores of first-time kindergartners, by parents’ highest level 

of education, household type, and poverty status: Fall 2010 4 

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners, by frequency of positive approaches to 

learning behaviors in fall of kindergarten year: Fall 2010 5 

Figure 4. Average reading scale scores of fall 2010 first-time kindergartners, by frequency of positive 
approaches to learning behaviors in fall of kindergarten year: Fall 2010, spring 2011, 
and spring 2012 6 

Figure 5. Average mathematics scale scores of fall 2010 first-time kindergartners, by frequency of 

positive approaches to learning behaviors in fall of kindergarten year: Fall 2010, spring 2011, 

and spring 2012 7 

Figure 6. Average science scale scores of fall 2010 first-time kindergartners, by frequency of positive 

approaches to learning behaviors in fall of kindergarten year: Spring 2011 and spring 2012 8 

Disparities in Educational Outcomes Among Male Youth 10 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of males ages 0-17, by race/ethnicity and presence of parents 

in household: 2013 10 

Figure 2. Percentage of males ages 0-17 in poverty, by race/ethnicity: 2012 11 

Figure 3. Average reading scale scores of 12th-grade students, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2013 12 

Figure 4. Average mathematics scale scores of 12th-grade students, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2013 13 

Figure 5. Average mathematics scale scores of male 12th-grade students, by race/ethnicity: 

2005 and 2013 14 

Figure 6. Rate per 100,000 of placement of juveniles in residential facilities, by race/ethnicity and 

sex: 2011 15 

Figure 7. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds who have not completed high school, by race/ethnicity 

and sex: 2014 16 

Figure 8. Percentage of male 18- to 24-year-olds who have not completed high school, by race/ethnicity: 

2000 and 2014 17 

Figure 9. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in 2- and 4-year colleges, by race/ethnicity 

and sex: 2013 18 

Figure 10. Percentage of male 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in 2- and 4-year colleges, by race/ethnicity: 

2000 and 2013 19 

Figure 11. Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds who have completed a bachelor’s or higher degree, by 

race/ethnicity and sex: 2013 20 


Contents ix 


Postsecondary Attainment: Differences by Socioeconomic Status 22 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of highest level of educational attainment of spring 2002 high school 

sophomores in 2012, by socioeconomic status (SES) 23 

Figure 2. Percentage of students’ expected levels of educational attainment of spring 2002 high school 

sophomores, by socioeconomic status (SES): 2002 and 2004 24 

Figure 3. Percentage of spring 2002 high school sophomores who expected to attend a postsecondary 
institution seeking information about college from various sources in 2004, by 
socioeconomic status (SES) 25 

Figure 4. Of spring 2002 high school sophomores with postsecondary plans who earned a bachelor’s degree 
or higher by 2012, percentage who sought college information from various sources in 2004, by 
socioeconomic status (SES) 26 

Figure 5. Percentage of spring 2002 high school sophomores who earned a bachelor’s degree or higher 

by 2012, by socioeconomic status (SES) and mathematics achievement quartile in 2002 27 

Figure 6. Percentage of spring 2002 high school sophomores who earned a bachelor’s degree or higher 

by 2012, by socioeconomic status (SES) and 2006 college enrollment status 28 

Chapter 1 . Population Characteristics 31 

Attainment 

1 Educational Attainment 32 

Figure 1. Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds who completed bachelor’s or higher and master’s or 

higher degrees, by sex: Selected years, 1990-2014 32 

Figure 2. Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds who completed at least a high school diploma or its 

equivalent, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990-2014 33 

Figure 3. Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds who completed a bachelor’s or higher degree, by 

race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990-2014 34 

2 International Educational Attainment 36 

Table 1. Percentage of the population that had completed high school in Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, by age group: 2012 36 

Table 2. Percentage of the population with a bachelor’s or higher degree in Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, by age group: 2012 37 

Table 3. Percentage of the population 25 to 64 years old that had completed high school in 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries: 2001 and 2012 38 

Table 4. Percentage of the population 25 to 64 years old with a bachelor’s or higher degree in 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries: 2001 and 2012 39 

Economic Outcomes 

3 Annual Earnings of Young Adults 42 

Figure 1. Percentage of the labor force ages 25-34 who worked full time, year round, by educational 

attainment: Selected years, 2000-2013 42 

Figure 2. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers ages 25-34, by educational 

attainment: 2013 43 

Figure 3. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers ages 25-34, by educational 

attainment: 2000-2013 44 

Figure 4. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers ages 25-34, by educational 

attainment and sex: 2013 45 

4 Employment Rates and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment 46 

Figure 1. Employment to population ratios, by age group and educational attainment: 

Selected years, 2000 through 2014 46 

Figure 2. Employment to population ratios, by age group and educational attainment: 2014 47 


X 


The Condition of Education 2015 


Figure 3. Unemployment rates, by age group and educational attainment: Selected years, 

2000 through 2014 48 

Figure 4. Unemployment rates, by age group and educational attainment: 2014 49 

Demographics 

5 Children Living in Poverty 50 

Figure 1. Percentage of 5- to 17-year-olds in families living in poverty, by region: 1990, 2000, and 2013 50 

Figure 2. Percentage of 5- to 17-year-olds in families living in poverty, by state: 2013 51 

Figure 3. Percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty, by race/ethnicity: 2008 and 2013 52 

Figure 4. Percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty, by selected race/ethnicity subgroups: 

2008 and 2013 53 

Figure 5. Percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty, by race/ethnicity and family structure: 2013 54 

Chapter 2. Participation in Education 57 

All Ages 

6 Enrollment Trends by Age 58 

Figure 1. Percentage of the population ages 3-17 enrolled in school, by age group: October 1990-2013 58 

Figure 2. Percentage of the population ages 18-19 enrolled in school, by education level: October 1990-2013 .... 59 

Figure 3. Percentage of the population ages 20-34 enrolled in school, by age group: October 1990-2013 60 

Preprimary Educaticn 

7 Preprimary Enrollment 62 

Figure 1. Percentage of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children enrolled in preprimary programs: 

1990 through 2013 62 

Figure 2. Percentage of 3- to 4-year-old children and 5-year-old children in preprimary programs 

attending full-day programs: 1990 through 2013 63 

Figure 3. Percentage of 3- to 5-year-old children enrolled in preprimary programs, by race/ethnicity 

and level of program: October 2013 64 

Figure 4. Percentage of 3- to 5-year-old children enrolled in preprimary programs, by parents’ 

highest level of education and level of program: October 2013 65 

Figure 5. Percentage of 3- to 4-year-old children enrolled in preschool education, by country: 2012 66 

Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 

8 Public School Enrollment 68 

Figure 1. Actual and projected public school enrollment in prekindergarten (preK) through grade 12, 

by grade level: School years 2000-01 through 2024-25 68 

Figure 2. Projected percentage change in public school enrollment in prekindergarten through grade 12, 

by state: Between school years 2012-13 and 2024-25 69 

9 Charter School Enrollment 70 

Figure 1. Number of public charter schools, by school level: Selected school years, 1999-2000 

through 2012-13 70 

Figure 2. Number of students enrolled in public charter schools, by school level: Selected school years, 

1999-2000 through 2012-13 71 

Figure 3. Percentage of all public school students enrolled in public charter schools, by state: 

School year 2012-13 72 

Figure 4. Percentage distribution of public charter school students, by race/ethnicity: 

School years 1999-2000 and 2012-13 73 


Contents xi 


10 Private School Enrollment 74 

Figure 1. Private school enrollment in prekindergarten (preK) through grade 12, by grade level: 

School years 1995-96 through 2011-12 74 

Figure 2. Number of private school students in prekindergarten through grade 12, by school type: 

Selected school years, 1995-96 through 2011-12 75 

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of private elementary and secondary school enrollment, by 

school level and type: 2011-12 76 

Figure 4. Percentage distribution of private elementary and secondary school enrollment, by school 

locale and type: 2011-12 77 

Figure 5. Percentage distribution of private elementary and secondary school enrollment, by 

race/ethnicity and school type: 2011-12 78 

11 Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools 80 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, 

by race/ethnicity: Fall 2002, fall 2012, and fall 2024 80 

Figure 2. Number of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, by region and 

race/ethnicity: Fall 2002 through fall 2012 81 

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, 

by region and race/ethnicity: Fall 2012 82 

12 English Language Learners 84 

Figure 1. Percentage of public school students who are English language learners, by state: 

School year 2012-13 84 

Figure 2. Percentage of public school students who are English language learners, by locale: 

School year 2012-13 85 

13 Children and Youth With Disabilities 88 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of children ages 3-21 served under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by disability type: School year 2012-13 88 

Figure 2. Percentage of students ages 6-21 served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA), Part B, placed in a regular public school environment, by amount of time spent 
inside general classes: Selected school years 1990-91 through 2012-13 89 

Figure 3. Percentage of children 3-21 years old served under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by race/ethnicity: School year 2012-13 90 

Postsecondary Enrollment 

14 Undergraduate Enrollment 92 

Figure 1. Actual and projected undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by sex: Fall 1990-2024 92 

Figure 2. Undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity: 

Fall 1990-2013 93 

Figure 3. Actual and projected undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by attendance status: Fall 1990-2024 94 

Figure 4. Undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by control of 

institution: Fall 1990-2013 95 

Figure 5. Actual and projected undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by level of institution: Fall 1990-2024 96 

Figure 6. Percentage of undergraduate students at degree-granting postsecondary institutions who 
participated exclusively in distance education courses, by control and level of institution: 

Fall 2013 97 


xii The Condition of Education 2015 


15 Postbaccalaureate Enrollment 98 

Figure 1. Actual and projected postbaccalaureate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by sex: Fall 1990-2024 98 

Figure 2. Postbaccalaureate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity: 

Fall 1990-2013 99 

Figure 3. Actual and projected postbaccalaureate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by attendance status: Fall 1990-2024 100 

Figure 4. Postbaccalaureate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by control of 

institution: Fall 1990-2013 101 

Figure 5. Percentage of postbaccalaureate students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by participation in distance education and control of institution: Fall 2013 102 

Chapter 3. Elementary and Secondary Education 105 

School Characteristics and Climate 

16 Characteristics of Traditional Public and Public Charter Schools 106 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of traditional public schools and charter schools, by enrollment size: 

School years 1999-2000 and 2012-13 106 

Figure 2. Percentage of traditional public schools and charter schools, by racial/ethnic concentration: 

School years 1999-2000 and 2012-13 107 

Figure 3. Percentage of traditional public schools and charter schools, by percentage of students eligible 

for free or reduced-price lunch: School year 2012-13 108 

Figure 4. Percentage distribution of traditional public schools and charter schools, by school locale and 

region: School year 2012-13 109 

17 Concentration of Public School Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Punch 110 

Figure 1. Percentage of public school students in low-poverty and high-poverty schools, by race/ethnicity: 

School year 2012-13 110 

Figure 2. Percentage of public school students, by school poverty level and school locale: 

School year 2012-13 Ill 

18 Rates of School Crime 112 

Figure 1. Rate of total nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, 

by location: 1992-2013 112 

Figure 2. Rate of thefts against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by location: 1992-2013 113 

Figure 3. Rate of all nonfatal violent victimizations against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, 

by location: 1992-2013 114 

Figure 4. Rate of nonfatal serious violent victimizations against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, 

by location: 1992-2013 115 

Figure 5. Rate of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12-18 at and away from school per 

1,000 students, by type of victimization and age: 2013 116 

Figure 6. Rate of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12-18 at and away from school per 

1,000 students, by type of victimization and sex: 2013 117 

19 Teachers and Pupil/Teacher Ratios 118 

Figure 1. Teachers as a percentage of staff in public elementary and secondary school systems, by state: 

Fall 2012 118 

Figure 2. Public and private elementary and secondary school pupil/teacher ratios: Selected years, 

fall 1955 through fall 2012 119 


Contents xiii 


Finance 


20 Public School Revenue Sources 120 

Figure 1. Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by revenue source: 

School years 2001—02 through 2011—12 120 

Figure 2. State revenues for public elementary and secondary schools as a percentage of total public 

school revenues, by state: School year 2011-12 121 

Figure 3. Property tax revenues for public elementary and secondary schools as a percentage of total 

public school revenues, by state: School year 2011-12 122 

21 Public School Expenditures 124 

Figure 1. Total expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, 

by type of expenditure: 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2011-12 124 

Figure 2. Current expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, 

by function of expenditure: 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2011-12 125 

Figure 3. Percentage of current expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and 

secondary schools, by type of expenditure: 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2011-12 126 

22 Education Expenditures by Country 128 

Figure 1. Annual expenditures per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student for elementary and secondary 
education in selected Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
countries, by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita: 2011 129 

Figure 2. Annual expenditures per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student for postsecondary education in 
selected Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, by 
gross domestic product (GDP) per capita: 2011 130 

Figure 3. Direct expenditures on education as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) for 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries with the 
highest percentages, by level of education: 2011 131 

Assessments 

23 Reading Performance 132 

Figure 1. Average reading scale scores of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students: Selected years, 1992-2013 132 

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students across National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) reading achievement levels: Selected years, 1992-2013 133 

Figure 3. Average reading scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade students, by race/ethnicity: 1992, 2011, 

and 2013 134 

Figure 4. Average reading scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade students, by sex: 1992, 2011, and 2013 135 

Figure 5. Average reading scale scores of 12th-grade students, by sex and race/ethnicity: 1992, 2009, 

and 2013 136 

Figure 6. Change in average reading scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade public school students, by state: 

Between 2011 and 2013 137 

Figure 7. Average reading scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade public school students, by jurisdiction: 2013 .... 138 

24 Mathematics Performance 140 

Figure 1. Average mathematics scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade students: Selected years, 1990-2013 140 

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students across National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics achievement levels: Selected years, 1990-2013 14l 

Figure 3. Average mathematics scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade students, by race/ethnicity: 1990, 2011, 

and 2013 142 

Figure 4. Average mathematics scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade students, by sex: 1990, 2011, and 2013 .... 143 

Figure 5. Average mathematics scale scores of 12th-grade students, by sex and race/ethnicity: 2005, 2009, 

and 2013 144 

xiv The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Figure 6. Change in average mathematics scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade public school students, 

by state: Between 2011 and 2013 145 

Figure 7. Average mathematics scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade public school students, by jurisdiction: 

2013 146 

25 Reading and Mathematics Score Trends 148 

Figure 1. Average reading scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP), by age: Selected years, 1971 through 2012 148 

Figure 2. Average mathematics scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP), by age: Selected years, 1973 through 2012 149 

Figure 3. Average reading scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) for 13-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1971 through 2012 150 

Figure 4. Average mathematics scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) for 17-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1973 through 2012 151 

26 International Assessments 152 

Table 1. Average scores of 15-year-old students on the Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA) mathematics literacy scale, by education system: 2012 153 

Figure 1. Percentage of 15-year-old students performing on the Program for International Student 
Assessment (PISA) mathematics literacy scale, by selected proficiency level and education 
system: 2012 154 

Table 2. Average scores of 15-year-old students on the Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA) science literacy scale, by education system: 2012 155 

Figure 2. Percentage of 15-year-old students performing on the Program for International Student 
Assessment (PISA) science literacy scale, by selected proficiency level and education 
system: 2012 156 

Table 3. Average scores of 15-year-old students on the Program for International Student 

Assessment (PISA) reading literacy scale, by education system: 2012 157 

Figure 3. Percentage of 15-year-old students performing on the Program for International Student 
Assessment (PISA) reading literacy scale, by selected proficiency level and education 
system: 2012 158 

Table 4. Average TIMSS mathematics assessment scale scores of 4th-grade students, by education 

system: 2011 160 

Table 5. Average TIMSS science assessment scale scores of 4th-grade students, by education 

system: 2011 161 

Table 6. Average TIMSS mathematics assessment scale scores of 8th-grade students, by education 

system: 2011 162 

Table 7. Average TIMSS science assessment scale scores of 8th-grade students, by education 

system: 2011 163 

Figure 4. Number of instructional hours per year for 4th-grade students, by country or education 

system and subject: 2011 164 

Figure 5. Number of instructional hours per year for 8th-grade students, by country or education 

system and subject: 2011 166 

Table 8. Average PIRLS reading literacy assessment scale scores of 4th-grade students, by education 

system: 2011 168 

Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 

27 High School Coursetaking 170 

Figure 1. Percentage of high school graduates who completed selected mathematics and science courses 

in high school: 1990 and 2009 170 

Figure 2. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 12th-grade mathematics scale 

scores of high school graduates, by highest mathematics course taken and race/ethnicity: 2009 172 


Contents xv 


28 Public High School Graduation Rates 174 

Figure 1. Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) for public high school students: 

School years 1990-91 through 2011-12 174 

Figure 2. Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) for public high school students, by 

race/ethnicity: School year 2011-12 175 

Figure 3. Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) for public high school students, by state: 

School year 2011-12 176 

29 Status Dropout Rates 178 

Figure 1. Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds, by sex: 1990 through 2013 178 

Figure 2. Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: 1990 through 2013 179 

Figure 3. Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds, by income level: 1990 through 2013 180 

Figured. Percentage distribution of status dropouts, by years of school completed: 1990 through 2013 181 

Figure 5. Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2012 182 

Figure 6. Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds in the household and noninstitutionalized 

group quarters population, by race/ethnicity and nativity: 2012 183 

Transition to College 

30 Immediate College Enrollment Rate 184 

Figure 1. Percentage of high school completers who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges by the October 

immediately following high school completion, by level of institution: 1990—2013 184 

Figure 2. Percentage of high school completers who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges by the October 

immediately following high school completion, by sex: 1990—2013 185 

Figure 3. Percentage of high school completers who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges by the October 

immediately following high school completion, by family income: 1990—2013 186 

Figure 4. Percentage of high school completers who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges by the October 

immediately following high school completion, by race/ethnicity: 1990-2013 187 

Chapter 4. Postsecondary Education 189 

Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 

31 Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions 190 

Figure 1. Number of degree-granting institutions with first-year undergraduates, by level and control of 

institution: Academic years 2000-01 and 2013-14 190 

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of 4-year degree-granting institutions with first-year undergraduates, by 

application acceptance rate and control of institution: Academic year 2013-14 191 

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of 2-year degree-granting institutions with first-year undergraduates, by 

application acceptance rate and control of institution: Academic year 2013-14 192 

Figure 4. Percentage of 4-year degree-granting institutions with first-year undergraduates, by admission 

requirements and control of institution: Academic year 2013-14 193 

32 Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 194 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions, by institutional level and control and student age: Fall 2013 194 

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of part-time undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions, by institutional level and control and student age: Fall 2013 195 

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of U.S. resident undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions, by institutional level and control and student race/ethnicity: 

Fall 2013 196 


xvi The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Figure 4. Percentage distribution of full-time and part-time postbaccalaureate enrollment in 

degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by institutional control and student age: Fall 2013 197 

Figure 5. Percentage distribution of U.S. resident postbaccalaureate enrollment in degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions, by institutional control and race/ethnicity of student: Fall 2013 198 

Figure 6. Percentage of 16- to 24-year-old college students who were employed, by attendance status 

and hours worked per week: October 2000 through October 2013 199 

Programs and Courses 

33 Undergraduate Degree Fields 200 

Figure 1. Number of associate’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study: 

Academic years 2002-03 and 2012-13 200 

Figure 2. Number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study: 

Academic years 2002-03 and 2012-13 201 

Figure 3. Number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study, 

by sex: Academic year 2012-13 202 

34 Graduate Degree Fields 204 

Figure 1. Number of master’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study: 

Academic years 2002-03, 2007-08, 2011-12, and 2012-13 204 

Figure 2. Number of doctor’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study: 

Academic years 2002-03, 2007-08, 2011-12, and 2012-13 205 

Figure 3. Number of master’s and doctor’s degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions, by level of degree 

and sex: Academic years 2002-03, 2007-08, 2011-12, and 2012-13 206 

Finance and Resources 

35 Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution 208 

Figure 1. Average total cost of attending degree-granting institutions for first-time, full-time students, 

by level and control of institution and student living arrangement: Academic year 2013-14 208 

Figure 2. Average total price, net price, and grant and scholarship aid for first-time, full-time students 
paying in-state tuition and receiving aid at public 4-year institutions, by family income level: 
Academic year 2012-13 209 

Figure 3. Average total price, net price, and grant and scholarship aid for first-time, full-time students 
receiving aid at private nonprofit 4-year institutions, by family income level: Academic 
year 2012-13 210 

Figure 4. Average total price, net price, and grant and scholarship aid for first-time, full-time students 
receiving aid at private for-profit 4-year institutions, by family income level: Academic 
year 2012-13 211 

36 Grants and Loan Aid to Undergraduate Students 212 

Figure 1. Percentage of first-time, full-time undergraduate students in degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions receiving any financial aid, by level and control of institution: Academic 
years 2007-08 through 2012-13 212 

Figure 2. Percentage of first-time, full-time undergraduate students receiving financial aid at 4-year degree- 
granting postsecondary institutions, by type of aid and control of institution: 

Academic year 2012-13 213 

Figure 3. Percentage of first-time, full-time undergraduate students receiving financial aid at 2-year 
degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of aid and control of institution: 

Academic year 2012-13 214 

Figure 4. Average amount of student financial aid awarded to first-time, full-time undergraduate students 
receiving aid at 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of financial aid 
and control of institution: Academic year 2012-13 215 

Figure 5. Average amount of student financial aid awarded to first-time, full-time undergraduate students 
receiving aid at 2-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of financial aid 
and control of institution: Academic year 2012-13 216 


Contents xvii 


37 Postsecondary Revenues by Source 218 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of total revenues at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by institutional control, level, and source of funds: 2012-13 218 

Figure 2. Revenues from tuition and fees per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student for degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions, by institutional control and level: 2007-08 and 2012-13 219 

Figure 3. Revenues from government grants, contracts, and appropriations per full-time-equivalent (FTE) 
student for degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by source of funds and institutional 
control and level: 2007-08 and 2012-13 220 

38 Expenses of Postsecondary Institutions 222 

Figure 1. Percentage of total expenses at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by purpose of 

expenses and control of institution: 2012-13 222 

Figure 2. Expenses per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by purpose of expenses and control of institution: 2012-13 223 

Figure 3. Expenses per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student for instruction at 2-year and 4-year 

degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by control of institution: 2007-08 and 2012-13 224 

39 Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty 226 

Figure 1. Number of faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by employment status: 

Selected years, fall 1993 through fall 2013 226 

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of full-time instructional faculty in degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions, by academic rank, selected race/ethnicity, and sex: Fall 2013 227 

Figure 3. Average salary of full-time instructional faculty on 9-month contracts in degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions, by academic rank: Selected years, 1993-94 through 2013-14 228 

Figure 4. Average salary of full-time instructional faculty on 9-month contracts in degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions, by control and level of institution: 2013-14 229 

40 Student Loan Volume and Default Rates 230 

Figure 1. Average tuition and fees for full-time students at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by level and control of institution: 2000-01 through 2012-13 230 

Figure 2. Percentage of first-time, full-time students receiving loan aid at degree-granting postsecondary 

institutions, by level and control of institution: Selected years, 2000-01 through 2012-13 231 

Figure 3. Average loan amounts for first-time, full-time students receiving loan aid at degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions, by level and control of institution: Selected years, 2000-01 through 
2012-13 232 

Figure 4. Three-year student loan cohort default rates at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 

by level and control of institution: Fiscal years (FY) 2009 through 2011 233 

Completions 

41 Institutional Retention and Graduation Rates for Undergraduate Students 234 

Figure 1. Percentage of first-time, full-time undergraduates retained at 2- and 4-year degree-granting 

institutions, by institution level, control of institution, and acceptance rate: 2012 to 2013 234 

Figure 2. Graduation rate (within 6 years) from first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s 
degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by control of institution and sex: 

Cohort entry year 2007 235 

Figure 3. Graduation rate (within 6 years) from first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s 
degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by acceptance rate of institution: 

Cohort entry year 2007 236 

Figure 4. Graduation rate from first institution attended within 150 percent of normal time for first-time, 
full-time degree/certificate-seeking students at 2-year postsecondary institutions, by control of 
institution and sex: Cohort entry year 2010 237 


xviii The Condition of Education 2015 


42 Degrees Conferred by Public and Private Institutions 238 

Table 1. Number of degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions and percentage change, by control 

of institution and level of degree: Academic years 1992-93, 2002-03, and 2012-13 238 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of certificates and associate’s degrees conferred by postsecondary 

institutions, by control of institution: Academic years 2002-03 and 2012-13 239 

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary 

institutions, by control of institution: Academic years 2002-03 and 2012-13 240 

Guide to Sources 242 

Glossary 270 


Contents xix 


This page intentionally left blank. 


The Condition of Education 2015 At a Glance 


More information is available at nces.ed.aov/oroarams/coe. 

Population Characteristics 

Educational Attainment 

2013 

2014 

Change 
between years 

Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds with selected levels of 
educational attainment 




High school completion or higher 

90% 

91% 


Bachelor's or higher degree 

34% 

34% 


Master's or higher degree 

7% 

8% 


International Educational Attainment 

2011 

2012 


Percentage of the population 25 to 34 years old who completed 
high school 




United States 

89% 

89% 


Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 
(OECD) countries 

82% 

83% 

A 

Percentage of the population 25 to 34 years old who attained a 
bachelor's or higher degree 




United States 

33% 

34% 


OECD countries 

29.5% 

30.3% 

A 

Annual Earnings ot Young Adults 

Median annual earnings for 25- to 34-year-olds' 

2012 

2013 


Total 

$38,600 

$40,000 


With less than high school completion 

$23,200 

$23,900 


Who completed high school as highest level 

$30,400 

$30,000 


Who attained a bachelor's or higher degree 

$50,700 

$50,000 


Employment Rates and Unemployment Rates by 
Educational Attainment 

2013 

2014 


Unemployment rates of 25- to 34-year-olds 




Total 

8.0% 

7.4% 


With less than high school completion 

15.1% 

13.7% 


Who completed high school as highest level 

12.1% 

10.5% 


Who attained a bachelor's or higher degree 

3.6% 

3.7% 


Children Living in Poverty 

2012 

2013 


Percentage of 5- to 17-year-old children in families living 
in poverty 

21.0% 

20.7% 


See notes at end of table. 





LEGEND: A = Higher, T = Lower, Blank = Not measurably different 


At a Glance 




Participation in Education 


Change 


Enrollment Trends by Age 

Percentage ot persons enrolled in school 

2012 

2013 

between years 

3- and 4-year-olds 

54% 

55% 


5- and 6-year-olds 

93% 

94% 


7- to 13-year-olds 

98% 

98% 


14- and 15-year-olds 

98% 

98% 


16- and 17-year-olds 

96% 

94% 

T 

18- and 19-year-olds 

69% 

67% 


20- to 24-year-olds 

40% 

39% 


25- to 29-year-olds 

14% 

13% 


30- to 34-year-olds 

7% 

7% 


Preprimary Enrollment 

Percentage ot children enrolled in preprimary education 

2012 

2013 


3-year-olds 

41% 

42% 


4-year-olds 

66% 

68% 


5-year-olds 

85% 

84% 


Public School Enrollment 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Number ot students enrolled in public schools 

49.5 million 

49.8 million 

A 

Prekindergarten through grade 8 

34.8 million 

35.0 million 

A 

Grades 9 through 12 

14.7 million 

14.8 million 

A 

Charter School Enrollment 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Number ot students in public charter schools 

2.1 million 

2.3 million 

A 

Percentage ot public school students in charter schools 

4.2% 

4.6% 

A 

Number ot public charter schools 

5,700 

6,100 

A 

Percentage ot public schools that are charter schools 

5.8% 

6.2% 

A 

Private School Enrollment 

2009-10 

2011-12 


Total number ot students enrolled in private schools 

5.5 million 

5.3 million 

T 

Prekindergarten through grade 8 

4.2 million 

4.0 million 

T 

Grades 9 through 12 

1.31 million 

1.29 million 

T 

Percentage ot all students in private schools 

10.0% 

9.6% 

T 


See notes at end ot table. 


LEGEND: A = Higher, T = Lower, Blank = Not measurably ditterent 


xxii The Condition of Education 2015 




Racial/Ethnic Enrollment In Public Schools 

Percentage of public school students 

2011-12 

2012-13 

Change 
between years 

White 

52% 

51% 

T 

Black 

15.8% 

15.7% 

T 

Hispanic 

23.7% 

24.3% 

A 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

5.07% 

5.13% 

A 

American Indian/Alaska Native 

1.11% 

1.07% 

T 

Two or more races 

2.6% 

2.8% 

A 

English Language Learners 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Percentage of public school students who are English 
language learners 

9.1% 

9.2% 

A 

Children and Youth With Disabilities 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Number of public school students 3 to 21 years old receiving 
special education services 

6.40 million 

6.43 million 

A 

Percentage of public school students 3 to 21 years old receiving 
special education services 

12.93% 

12.95% 

A 

Undergraduate Enrollment 

2012-13 

2013-14 


Total enrollment 

17.7 million 

17.5 million 

T 

Full-time enrollment 

11.1 million 

10.9 million 

T 

Part-time enrollment 

6.6 million 

6.5 million 

T 

Percentage enrolled in any distance education course 

25.8% 

26.5% 

A 

Percentage enrolled exclusively in distance education 

11.27% 

11.34% 

A 

Postbaccalaureate Enrollment 

2012-13 

2013-14 


Total enrollment 

2.91 million 

2.90 million 

T 

Full-time enrollment 

1.6 million 

1.7 million 

A 

Part-time enrollment 

1.3 million 

1.2 million 

T 

Percentage enrolled in any distance education course 

30% 

31% 

A 

Percentage enrolled exclusively in distance education 

22% 

23% 

A 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Characteristics of Traditional Public and Public Charter Schools 

2011-12 

2012-13 

Change 
between years 

Traditional public schools 




Total number of traditional public schools 
Percentage of traditional public schools 

92,632 

92,375 

T 

With more than 50% White enrollment 

61% 

60% 

T 

With more than 50% Black enrollment 

9.4% 

9.3% 

T 

With more than 50% Hispanic enrollment 

14.6% 

14.9% 

A 

ee notes at end of table. 





LEGEND: A = Higher, T = Lower, Blank = Not measurably different 


At a Glance xxiii 




Public charter schools 

2011-12 

2012-13 

Change 
between years 

Total number of public charter schools 
Percentage of public charter schools 

5,696 

6,079 

A 

With more than 50% White enrollment 

37.5% 

36.6% 

T 

With more than 50% Black enrollment 

25.3% 

24.9% 

T 

With more than 50% Hispanic enrollment 

22% 

23% 

A 

Concentration of Public School Students Eligible for Free or 
Reduced-Price Lunch 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Percentage of students attending high-poverty schools^ 

19% 

24% 

A 

Rates of School Crime 

2012 

2013 


Nonfatal victimization rate per 1,000 students 




Victimization occurred at school 

52 

55 


Victimization occurred away from school 

38 

30 


Teachers and Pupil/Teacher Ratios 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Number of public school teachers 

3.10 million 

3.11 million 

A 

Pupil/teacher ratio at public schools 

15.96 

16.01 

A 

Number of private school teachers 

421,000 

414,000 

T 

Pupil/teacher ratio at private schools 

12.5 

12.5 


Public School Revenue Sources' 

2010-11 

2011-12 


Total revenues 

$642 billion 

$620 billion 

T 

Federal sources 

$80 billion 

$63 billion 

T 

State sources 

$284 billion 

$280 billion 

T 

Local sources 

$278 billion 

$277 billion 

T 

Public School Expenditures' 

2010-11 

2011-12 


Total expenditures 

$642 billion 

$621 billion 

T 

Current expenditures per student 

$11,332 

$11,014 

T 

Education Expenditures by Country (2011) 

Expenditure per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student 

U.S. 

OECD 

Difference 
befween fhe 
U.S. and OECD 

Elementary and secondary education 

$11,841 

$8,789 

A 

Postsecondary education 

$26,021 

$13,619 

A 

ee notes at end of table. 


LEGEND: A = Higher, T = Lower, Blank = Not measurably different 


xxiv The Condition of Education 2015 


Reading Performance 

Percentage ot students who scored at or above Proficient 
4th-grade 
8th-grade 

12th-grade 

2011 

34% 

34% 

2009 

38% 

2013 

35% 

36% 

2013 

38% 

Change 
between years 

A 

A 

Mathematics Performance 

2011 

2013 


Percentage ot students who scored at or above Proficient 

4th-grade 

40% 

42% 

A 

8th-grade 

35% 

35% 


12th-grade 

2009 

26% 

2013 

26% 



U.S. 

International 

Difference 
between the 
U.S. average 
and the 


average 

average 

international 

Internationai Assessments 

score 

score 

average 

Program tor International Student Assessment (2012) 

Mathematics literacy ot 15-year-olds 

481 

494 

T 

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (2011) 

Mathematics scores ot 4th-grade students 

541 

500 

A 

Mathematics scores ot 8th-grade students 

509 

500 

A 

Science scores ot 4th-grade students 

544 

500 

A 

Science scores ot 8th-grade students 

525 

500 

A 

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (2011) 

Reading literacy ot 4th-grade students 

556 

500 

A 

High Schooi Coursetaking 

2005 

2009 

Change 
between years 

Percentage ot high school graduates who took selected 
mathematics courses 

Algebra ll/trigonometry 

71% 

76% 

A 

Analysis/precalculus 

29% 

35% 

A 

Percentage ot high school graduates who took selected 
science courses 

Biology and chemistry 

64% 

68% 

A 

Biology, chemistry, and physics 

27% 

30% 

A 


See notes at end ot table. 


LEGEND: A = Higher, T = Lower, Blank = Not measurably ditterent 


At a Glance xxv 


Public High School Graduation Rates 

Number ot graduates with a regular diploma 
Graduation rate'’ 

2010-11 

3.14 million 
80% 

2011-12 

3.15 million 
81% 

Change 
between years 

A 

A 

Status Dropout Rates 

2012 

2013 


Percentage ot 16- to 24-year-olds not enrolled in school who have 

not completed high school 

7% 

7% 


Immediate Transition to College 

2012 

2013 


Percentage ot recent high school graduates enrolled in college 

66% 

66% 


2-year institutions 

29% 

24% 

T 

4-year institutions 

37% 

42% 


Postsecondary Education 

Characteristics ot Postsecondary Institutions 

2012-13 

2013-14 

Change 
between years 

Total number ot institutions with first-year undergraduates 

4,295 

4,294 

T 

Number ot 4-year institutions with first-year undergraduates 

2,609 

2,634 

A 

Number ot 2-year institutions with first-year undergraduates 

1,686 

1,660 

T 

Characteristics ot Postsecondary Students 

2012-13 

2013-14 


Total enrollment 

17.7 million 

17.5 million 

T 

4-year institutions 

Total undergraduate enrollment 

10.6 million 

10.5 million 

T 

Number ot undergraduates enrolled tull time 

8.2 million 

8.1 million 

T 

Percentage ot undergraduates enrolled tull time 

77.17% 

77.15% 

T 

2-year institutions 

Total undergraduate enrollment 

7.2 million 

7.0 million 

T 

Number ot undergraduates enrolled tull time 

2.9 million 

2.8 million 

T 

Percentage ot undergraduates enrolled tull time 

41.1% 

40.7% 

T 

Degrees Conferred by Public and Private Institutions 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Number ot degrees/certificates conterred by postsecondary 
institutions 

Certificates 

989,061 

966,084 

T 

Associate's degrees 

1,021,718 

1,006,961 

T 

Bachelor's degrees 

1,792,163 

1,840,164 

A 

Master's degrees 

755,967 

751,751 

T 

Doctor's degrees 

170,217 

175,038 

A 


See notes at end ot table. 


LEGEND: A = Higher, T = Lower, Blank = Not measurably ditterent 


xxvi The Condition of Education 2015 




Undergraduate Degree Fields 

Number ot bachelor's degrees awarded 

2011-12 

2012-13 

Change 
between years 

Business 

367,200 

360,800 

T 

Health protessions and related programs 

163,700 

181,100 

A 

Social sciences and history 

178,500 

177,800 

T 

Graduate Degree Fields 

Number ot master's degrees awarded 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Business 

191,600 

188,600 

T 

Education 

179,000 

164,600 

T 

Health protessions and related programs 

84,400 

90,900 

A 

Price ot Attending an Undergraduate Institution 

Average net price at 4-year institutions’ 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Public, in-state 

$12,755 

$12,894 

A 

Private nonprofit 

$24,213 

$24,433 

A 

Private tor-profit 

$22,130 

$21,742 

T 

Grants and Loan Aid to Undergraduate Students 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Percentage ot students receiving any financial aid 
at 4-year institutions 

85.3% 

85.0% 

T 

Percentage ot students receiving any financial aid 
at 2-year institutions 

79.5% 

78.3% 

T 

Postsecondary Revenues by Source 

Revenue trom tuition and tees per FTE student’ 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Public institutions 

$6,163 

$6,415 

A 

Private nonprofit institutions 

$19,632 

$19,866 

A 

Private tor-profit institutions 

$15,413 

$16,135 

A 

Expenses of Postsecondary Institutions 

Instruction expenses per FTE student’ 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Public institutions 

$7,625 

$7,814 

A 

Private nonprotit institutions 

$16,265 

$16,432 

A 

Private tor-profit institutions 

$3,597 

$3,893 

A 

Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty 

2011-12 

2013-14 


Number ot tull-time instructional taculty 

762,100 

791,400 

A 

Number ot part-time instructional taculty 

762,400 

752,700 

T 


See notes at end ot table. 


LEGEND: A = Higher, T = Lower, Blank = Not measurably ditterent 


At a Glance xxvii 


student Loan Volume and Default Rate 

2011-12 

2012-13 

Change 
between years 

Average student loan amounP 

$6,900 

$7,000 

A 


Fiscal year 
2010 

Fiscal year 
2011 


3-year detault rate® 

14.7% 

13.7% 

T 

Institutional Retention and Graduation Rates for Undergraduates 

4-year institutions 

2011-12 

2012-13 


Retention rate ot first-time undergraduates 

79% 

80% 

A 

Graduation rate (within 6 years ot starting program) ot first- 
time, tull-time undergraduates 

59.2% 

59.4% 

A 

2-year institutions 




Retention rate ot first-time undergraduates 

59% 

60% 

A 

Graduation rate (within 3 years ot starting program) ot first- 
time, tull-time undergraduates 

31% 

29% 

T 


' Data are reported in constant 2013-14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

high-poverty school is defined as a public school where more than 75 percent ot the students are eligible tor tree 
or reduced-price lunch. 

^Profc/en/ represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over 
challenging subject matter. 

"The graduation rate is based on the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR), which is the number ot high 
school diplomas awarded expressed as a percentage ot the estimated treshman class 4 years earlier. 

®The 3-year cohort detault rate is the percentage ot students who entered repayment during a given fiscal year and 
detaulted within the second following fiscal year. 

NOTE: All calculations within the At a Glance are based on unrounded numbers. Race categories exclude persons ot 
Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: The Condition of Education 2015. 


LEGEND: A= Higher, T= Lower, 


Blank = Not measurably ditterent 


xxviii The Condition of Education 2015 


Highlights From The Condition of Education 2015 

Spotlights 



Kindergartners' Approaches to Learning Behaviors and Academic Outcomes 

In the fall of 2010, about 26 percent of first-time kindergartners were rated by their teachers as demonstrating positive 
approaches to learning behaviors “very often,” 47 percent were rated as demonstrating these behaviors “often,” 

25 percent were rated as demonstrating them “sometimes,” and 1 percent were rated as “never” demonstrating them. 

Fall kindergarten Approaches to Learning scores were positively associated with reading, mathematics, and science scores 
in kindergarten and first grade. 


Disparities in Educational Outcomes Among Male Youth 

In 2013, the percentage of males ages 25-29 who had completed a bachelor’s or higher degree was higher for Asians 
(55 percent) than for Whites (37 percent), those of Two or more races (29 percent). Blacks (17 percent), and Hispanics 
(13 percent). This percentage was also higher for White males and males of Two or more races than for their Hispanic 
and Black peers. 


Postsecondary Attainment: Differences by Socioeconomic Status 

A smaller percentage of students of low socioeconomic status (SES) than students of middle SES attained a bachelor’s or 
higher degree within 8 years of high school completion (14 vs. 29 percent), and percentages for both groups were smaller 
than the percentage of high-SES students who attained this level of education (60 percent). 


Population Characteristics 


ATTAINMENT 


Educational Attainment 

In 2014, some 91 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds had received at least a high school diploma or its equivalent. Between 
1990 and 2014, the size of the White-Black gap in attainment of a high school diploma or its equivalent narrowed from 
8 to 4 percentage points, and the size of the White-Hispanic gap narrowed from 32 to 21 percentage points. 

International Educational Attainment 

The percentage of 25- to 64-year-olds who had earned a bachelor’s or higher degree was higher in 2012 than in 2001 in 
the United States (33 vs. 28 percent) and across OECD countries (24 vs. 15 percent). 


$ ECONOMIC OUTCOMES 


Annual Earnings of Young Adults 

In 2013, young adults with a bachelor’s degree earned more than twice as much as those without a high school credential 
($48,500 vs. $23,900) and 62 percent more than young adult high school completers ($48,500 vs. $30,000). 

Employment Rates and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment 

The percentage of the adult population who were employed was higher in 2014 than at the end of the recent recession in 
2010, but lower than before the recession began in 2008. 


n DEMOGRAPHICS 


Children Living in Poverty 

In 2013, approximately 21 percent of school-age children were in families living in poverty. The percentage of school-age 
children living in poverty ranged across the United States from 9 percent in New Hampshire to 33 percent in Mississippi. 


Highlights xxix 











Participation in Education 


ttMttALL AGES 


Enrollment Trends by Age 

In 2013, some 94 percent of 5- to 6-year-olds and 98 percent of 7- to 13-year-olds were enrolled in elementary or 
secondary school. In that same year, 47 percent of 18- to 19-year-olds and 39 percent of 20- to 24-year-olds were enrolled 
in postsecondary education. Although the total school enrollment rate of most age groups from 3 to 34 did not change 
measurably between 2012 and 2013, the enrollment rate of 16- to 17-year-olds was 2 percentage points lower in 2013 
than in 2012. 


^ PREPRIMARY EDUCATION 


Preprimary Enrollment 

The percentage of 3- to 5-year-olds enrolled in preprimary programs increased from 59 to 64 percent between 1990 and 
2000, but there has been no measurable increase since then. The percentage of these children who attended full-day 
programs increased from 39 to 60 percent between 1990 and 2013 overall, although the 2013 full-day enrollment rate 
was not measurably different from the 2012 rate. 


\\^ ELEMENTARY/SECONDARY ENROLLMENT 


Public School Enrollment 

From school years 2012-13 through 2024-25, overall public elementary and secondary school enrollment is projected to 
increase by 6 percent (from 49.8 million to 52.9 million students), with changes across states ranging from an increase of 
26 percent in Nevada to a decrease of 11 percent in West Virginia. 

Charter School Enrollment 

From school year 1999-2000 to 2012-13, the number of students enrolled in public charter schools increased from 
0.3 million to 2.3 million. During this period, the percentage of public school students who attended charter schools 
increased from 0.7 to 4.6 percent. 

Private School Enrollment 

Private school enrollment in prekindergarten through grade 12 increased from 5.9 million in 1995—96 to 6.3 million in 
2001-02, then decreased to 5.3 million in 2011-12. The percentage of all students in private schools decreased from 
12 percent in 1995—96 to 10 percent in 2011—12. 

Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools 

From fall 2002 through fall 2012, the number of White students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools 
decreased from 28.6 million to 25.4 million, and their share of public school enrollment decreased from 59 to 51 percent. 
In contrast, the number of Hispanic students enrolled during this period increased from 8.6 million to 12.1 million 
students, and their share of public school enrollment increased from 18 to 24 percent. 

English Language Learners 

The percentage of public school students in the United States who were English language learners (ELL) was higher in 
school year 2012-13 (9.2 percent) than in 2002-03 (8.7 percent) and in 2011-12 (9.1 percent). In 2012-13, five of the 
six states with the highest percentages of ELL students in their public schools were located in the West. 

Children and Youth With Disabilities 

The number of children and youth ages 3-21 receiving special education services was 6.4 million, or about 13 percent 
of all public school students, in 2012-13. Some 35 percent of students receiving special education services had specific 
learning disabilities. 


XXX 


The Condition of Education 2015 








Ill POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT 


Undergraduate Enrollment 

Total undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions was 17.5 million students in fall 2013, 
an increase of 46 percent from 1990, when it was 12.0 million students. By 2024, total undergraduate enrollment is 
projected to increase to 19.6 million students. 

Postbaccalaureate Enrollment 

Total enrollment in postbaccalaureate degree programs was 2.9 million students in fall 2013. Between 2013 and 2024, 
postbaccalaureate enrollment is projected to increase by 20 percent to 3.5 million students. 

Elementary and Secondary Education 


ft SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS AND CLIMATE 


Characteristics of Traditional Public and Public Charter Schools 

In school year 2012-13, the majority of charter schools (57 percent) were in cities, compared with 25 percent of 
traditional public schools. In contrast, 11 percent of charter schools were in rural areas, compared with 29 percent of 
traditional public schools. 


Concentration of Public School Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 

In school year 2012-13, higher percentages of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students attended 
high-poverty public schools than did Pacific Islander students, students of Two or more races, Asian students, and White 
students (ordered by descending percentages). 

Rates of School Crime 

Through nearly two decades of decline, the nonfatal victimization rate for 12- to 18-year-old students at school fell from 
181 crimes per 1,000 students in 1992 to 55 per 1,000 students in 2013. The nonfatal victimization rate away from 
school for these students also declined from 173 to 30 crimes per 1,000 students during the same period. 


Teachers and Pupil/Teacher Ratios 

Of the 6.2 million staff members in public elementary and secondary schools in fall 2012, some 3.1 million, or 
50 percent, were teachers. The pupil/teacher ratio in public schools decreased over time from 26.9 students per teacher 
in 1955 to 17.9 in 1985, and then further declined to 15.3 in 2008. In the most recent years, the pupil/teacher ratios in 
2010, 2011, and 2012 (all 16.0) were higher than the ratio in 2009 (15.4). 


$ FINANCE 


Public School Revenue Sources 

From school years 2001-02 through 2011-12, total elementary and secondary public school revenues increased from 
$553 billion to $620 billion (in constant 2013-14 dollars). During the most recent period from 2010-11 through 
2011-12, total revenues for public elementary and secondary schools decreased by about $22 billion, or more than 
3 percent. 

Public School Expenditures 

From 2000-01 to 2011-12, current expenditures per student in public elementary and secondary schools increased by 
11 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Current expenditures per student peaked in 2008-09 at $11,537 and have 
decreased each year since then. The amount for 2011-12 ($11,014) was 3 percent less than the amount for 2010-11 
($11,332). 

Education Expenditures by Country 

In 2011, the United States spent $11,841 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on elementary and secondary education, 
an amount 35 percent higher than the OECD average of $8,789. At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures per FTE 
student were $26,021, almost twice as high as the OECD average of $13,619. 


Highlights xxxi 








S ASSESSMENTS 


Reading Performance 

The average grade 8 reading score was higher in 2013 than in 2011, according to data from the National Assessment 
of Educational Progress. At grade 4, the average score in 2013 was not measurably different from the score in 2011. 
Similarly, at grade 12 the average score in 2013 was not measurably different from that in 2009. 

Mathematics Performance 

The average 4th- and 8th-grade mathematics scores in 2013 were higher than the scores in all previous assessment years, 
according to data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. At grade 12, the average mathematics score in 
2013 was higher than in 2005 but not measurably different from the score in 2009. 

Reading and Mathematics Score Trends 

NAEP long-term trend results indicate that the average reading and mathematics achievement of 9- and 13-year-olds 
improved between the early 1970s and 2012; however, only 13-year-olds made score gains from 2008 to 2012, and they 
did so in both subject areas. Average reading and mathematics achievement for 17-year-olds did not change significantly 
between the early 1970s and 2012 or between 2008 and 2012. 

Internaticnal Assessments 

Among 15-year-old students, 29 education systems had higher average scores than the United States in mathematics 
literacy, 22 had higher average scores in science literacy, and 19 had higher average scores in reading literacy, according to 
the 2012 Program in International Student Assessment (PISA). 




STUDENT EFFORT, PERSISTENCE, AND PROGRESS 


High SchccI Ccursetaking 

The percentages of high school graduates who had taken mathematics courses in algebra I, geometry, algebra II/ 
trigonometry, analysis/precalculus, statistics/probability, and calculus increased from 1990 to 2009. The percentages of 
high school graduates who had taken science courses in chemistry and physics also increased between 1990 and 2009. 


Public High School Graduation Rates 

In school year 2011-12, some 3.1 million public high school students, or 81 percent, graduated on time with a regular 
diploma. Among all public high school students, Asian/Pacific Islander students had the highest graduation rate 
(93 percent), followed by Whites (85 percent), Hispanics (76 percent), and American Indians/Alaska Natives and Blacks 
(68 percent each). 


Status Dropout Rates 

The status dropout rate decreased from 12 percent in 1990 to 7 percent in 2013, with most of the decline occurring 
since 2000. From 1990 to 2013, the Hispanic status dropout rate declined from 32 percent to 12 percent, while Black 
and White status dropout rates decreased by 6 and 4 percentage points, respectively. Nevertheless, the Hispanic status 
dropout rate in 2013 (12 percent) remained higher than the White (5 percent) and Black (7 percent) status dropout rates. 


TRANSITION TO GOLLEGE 


Immediate College Enrollment Rate 

The immediate college enrollment rate increased from 60 percent in 1990 to 66 percent in 2013; however, this rate has 
decreased in recent years — down from 70 percent in 2009. In 2013, the immediate college enrollment rate for high 
school completers from high-income families (80 percent) was 31 percentage points higher than the rate for those from 
low-income families (49 percent). The 2013 gap between high school completers from high- and low-income families did 
not measurably differ from the corresponding gap in 1990 (30 percentage points). 


xxxii The Condition of Education 2015 







Postsecondary Education 


fllflf CHARACTERISTICS OF POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS 


Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions 

In 2013-14, some 29 percent of 4-year institutions had open admissions policies, 26 percent accepted three-quarters or 
more of their applicants, 32 percent accepted from one-half to less than three-quarters of their applicants, and 13 percent 
accepted less than one-half of their applicants. 

Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 

Some 10.5 million undergraduate students attended 4-year institutions in fall 2013, while 7.0 million attended 2-year 
institutions. At 4-year institutions in fall 2013, some 77 percent of undergraduate students attended full time, compared 
with 41 percent at 2-year institutions. 


^ PROGRAMS AND COURSES 


Undergraduate Degree Fields 

From 2002-03 to 2012-13, the number of associate’s degrees awarded increased by 59 percent, from 634,000 to over 
1 million, and the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded increased by 36 percent, from 1.3 million to 1.8 million. 

Graduate Degree Fields 

Between academic years 2002-03 and 2012-13, the number of master’s degrees awarded increased by 45 percent, from 
519,000 to 752,000, and the number of doctor’s degrees awarded increased by 44 percent, from 122,000 to 175,000. 


d]] FINANCE AND RESOURCES 


Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution 

The average net price of attendance (total cost minus grant and scholarship aid) in 2012-13 (in constant 2013-14 dollars) 
for first-time, full-time students was $12,890 at public, in-state 4-year institutions, $24,430 at private nonprofit 4-year 
institutions, and $21,740 at private for-profit 4-year institutions. 

Grants and Loan Aid to Undergraduate Students 

The percentage of first-time, full-time undergraduate students at 4-year degree-granting institutions receiving financial 
aid increased from 80 percent in 2007-08 to 85 percent in 2012-13. 

Postsecondary Revenues by Source 

Between 2007-08 and 2012-13, revenues from tuition and fees per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student increased by 
17 percent at public institutions (from $5,478 to $6,415, in constant 2013-14 dollars) and by 7 percent at private 
nonprofit institutions (from $18,550 to $19,866). At private for-profit institutions, revenues from tuition and fees were 
7 percent higher in 2012-13 than in 2007-08 ($16,135 vs. $15,110). 

Expenses of Postsecondary Institutions 

In 2012-13, instruction expenses per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student were $7,814 (in constant 2013-14 dollars) at 
public institutions, $16,432 at private nonprofit institutions, and $3,893 at private for-profit institutions. Instruction was 
the largest expense category at public and private nonprofit institutions and the second largest expense category at private 
for-profit institutions. 

Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty 

From fall 1993 to fall 2013, the number of full-time faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions increased by 
45 percent (from 545,700 to 791,400), while the number of part-time faculty increased by 104 percent (from 369,800 
to 752,700). As a result of the faster increase in the number of part-time faculty, the percentage of faculty who were part 
time increased from 40 to 49 percent during this period. 


Highlights xxxiii 








student Loan Volume and Default Rates 

In 2012-13, the average student loan amount of $7,000 represented a 39 percent increase over the 2000-01 amount 
of $5,100 (in constant 2013-14 dollars). Of the 4.7 million students who entered the repayment phase on their student 
loans in fiscal year (FY) 2011, some 651,000, or 13.7 percent, defaulted before the end of FY 2013. 


>/ COMPLETIONS 


Institutional Retention and Graduation Rates for Undergraduate Students 

About 59 percent of students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year institution in fall 2007 completed that 
degree within 6 years. The graduation rate for females (62 percent) was higher than the rate for males (56 percent). 

Degrees Conferred by Public and Private Institutions 

The number of postsecondary degrees conferred at each degree level increased between 2002-03 and 2012-13. The 
certificates below the associate’s degree level awarded during this period increased by 49 percent, associate’s degrees 
increased by 59 percent, bachelor’s degrees increased by 36 percent, master’s degrees increased by 45 percent, and doctor’s 
degrees increased by 44 percent. 


XXXIV 


The Condition of Education 2015 




This page intentionally left blank. 


This chapter of The Condition of Education features spotlight indicators on selected issues of current policy interest. 

This chapter’s indicators, as well as spotlight indicators and special analyses from previous editions, are available at 
The Condition of Education website: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe . 


XXXVl 


The Condition of Education 2015 


Spotlights 

Kindergartners' Approaches to Learning Behaviors and Academic Outcomes 2 

Disparities in Educational Outcomes Among Male Youth 10 

Postsecondary Attainment: Differences by Socioeconomic Status 22 


Spotlights 1 


Spotlights 


Kindergartners' Approaches to Learning Behaviors 
and Academic Outcomes 

In the fall of 2010, about 26 percent of first-time kindergartners were rated by 
their teachers as demonstrating positive approaches to learning behaviors "very 
often," 47 percent were rated as demonstrating these behaviors "often," 25 percent 
were rated as demonstrating them "sometimes," and 7 percent were rated as 
"never" demonstrating them. Fall kindergarten Approaches to Learning scores 
were positively associated with reading, mathematics, and science scores in 
kindergarten and first grade. 


At kindergarten entry, children differ not only in 
their cognitive knowledge and skills but also in their 
approaches to learning behaviors. In elementary school, 
positive approaches to learning include behaviors such as 
paying attention in class, completing tasks independently, 
organizing materials, and following classroom rules. 
Differences in children’s approaches to learning behaviors 
have been observed by teachers in the beginning of 
kindergarten.* Research suggests that children who 
demonstrate positive approaches to learning behaviors 
have stronger academic skills, on average, in kindergarten 
and first grade 

In the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten 
Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011), teachers of 
kindergarten students reported on how students rate in 
seven approaches to learning behaviors: paying attention. 


persisting in completing tasks, showing eagerness to learn 
new things, working independently, adapting easily to 
changes in routine, keeping belongings organized, and 
following classroom rules. Teachers assigned a rating 
of 1 (never), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), or 4 (very often) 
for each of the seven items during the fall kindergarten 
round of the ECLS-K:2011. Following data collection, 
an average of the seven ratings was calculated to 
represent each child’s fall kindergarten Approaches to 
Learning rating. This Spotlight describes differences 
in kindergartners’ Approaches to Learning ratings in 
the beginning of their kindergarten year (fall 2010), 
with respect to characteristics of the children and their 
families. It also explores associations between children’s 
initial Approaches to Learning category and their reading, 
mathematics, and science scores in kindergarten (fall 2010 
and spring 2011) and first grade (spring 2012).^ 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


2 The Condition of Education 2015 


Spotlights 


Figure 1. Average Approaches to Learning scores of first-time kindergartners, by sex, age at kindergarten entry, and 
race/ethnicity: Fali 2010 


Total 

Sex 

Male 

Female 

Age at kindergarten entry 

Less than 5 years old 
5 years old to 5 1 /2 years old 
More than 5 1 /2 years old to 6 years old 
More than 6 years old 

Race/ethnIcity 

White 
Black 
Hispanic 
Asian 
Pacific Islander 
American indian/Alaska Native 
Two or more races 


3.0 


12 . 8 . 


3.1 


12 . 8 , 

■ 2.9 


I 3.0 
■ 3.1 



1.0 


2.0 


3.0 


4.0 


Approaches to Learning score 


NOTE: The Approaches to Learning scale is based on teachers' reports on how students rate in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to 
learn, learning independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow classroom rules. Possible scores on the scale range from 1 to 4, with higher scores 
indicating that a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often. Following data collection, an average of the seven ratings was calculated to represent 
each child's fall kindergarten Approaches to Learning rating. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. Race 
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 201 0-1 1 
(ECLS-K:201 1), Kindergarten-First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 220.45. 


In the fall 2010 kindergarten data collection, the 
average Approaches to Learning rating for first-time 
kindergartners was 3.0. Teachers gave higher ratings, 
on average, to female than to male kindergartners 
on the Approaches to Learning scale (3.1 vs. 2.8). 
Kindergartners who were over years old when 
they entered kindergarten received higher ratings than 
younger kindergartners. For example, the average ratings 
for kindergartners who were more than 6 years old at 
kindergarten entry (3.1) and those who were 5Vi to 


6 years old (3.0) were higher than the ratings for those 
who were less than 5 years old (2.8) and those who were 
5 to 5Vi years old at kindergarten entry (2.9). Average 
Approaches to Learning ratings were higher for Asian (3.1) 
and White kindergartners (3.0) than for Black (2.8) and 
Hispanic kindergartners (2.9). Hispanic kindergartners, 
American Indian/Alaska Native kindergartners (3.0), and 
kindergartners of Two or more races (3.0) also had higher 
ratings than Black kindergartners. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 3 


Spotlights 


Figure 2. Average Approaches to Learning scores of first-time kindergartners, by parents' highest level of education, 
household type, and poverty status: Fall 2010 


Parents' highest level of education’ 

|2.8l 
|2.8| 

■ 2.9 

3 -I 

3.1 


^■ 3.0 

| 2 . 8 ' 

|2.8l 

2.7 I 

I 

]2.8l 

^ 2.9 


2.0 3.0 4.0 

Approaches to Learning score 

'Parents' highest level ot education is the highest level of education achieved by either of the parents or guardians in a two-parent household, by the only 
parent in a single-parent household, or by any guardian in a household with no parents. 

^Two parents may reter to two biological parents, two adoptive parents, or one biological/adoptive parent and one other parent/partner. Single parent refers 
to one biological or adoptive parent only. Other household type reters to households without parents, in which the guardian or guardians may be related or 
unrelated to the child. 

^ Poverty status is based on preliminary U.S. Census income thresholds for 201 0, which identify incomes determined to meet household needs, given family 
size and composition. For example, a family of three with one child was below the poverty threshold if its income was less than $1 7,552 in 201 0. 

NOTE: The Approaohes to Learning scale is based on teaohers' reports on how students rate in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to 
learn, learning independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow olassroom rules. Possible scores on the scale range from 1 to 4, with higher scores 
indicating that a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often. Following data collection, an average of the seven ratings was calculated to represent 
each child's fall kindergarten Approaches to Learning rating. Although rounded numbers are displayed, the figures are based on unrounded estimates. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 201 0-1 1 
(ECLS-K:201 1), Kindergarten-First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. See Digest of Education Statistics 20i4, table 220.45. 


Less than high school | 
High school completion | 
Some college/vooational | 
Bachelor's degree | 
Any graduate education ■ 

Household type^ 

Two-parent household | 
Mother-only household | 
Father-only household ■ 
Other household type | 

Poverty status^ 

Below poverty threshold ” 
1 00 to 1 99 percent of poverty threshold I 
200 peroent or more of poverty threshold ” 

1.0 


In the fall of kindergarten, first-time kindergartners 
whose parents’ highest level of education was a 
bachelor’s degree or any graduate education received 
higher Approaches to Learning ratings (both at 3.1), on 
average, than kindergartners whose parents had some 
college or vocational training (2.9), students whose 
parents completed high school (2.8), and students whose 
parents had completed less than high school (2.8). 
Kindergartners from two-parent households were rated 


higher (3.0) than their peers from single-parent, mother- 
or father-only households (2.8) or other household types 
(2.7). With respect to household poverty status, the 
average Approaches to Learning rating was highest for 
kindergartners in households with incomes at or above 
200 percent of the federal poverty level (3.1) and lowest 
for those in households with incomes below the federal 
poverty level (2.8). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


4 The Condition of Education 2015 


Spotlights 


Figure 3. Percentage distribution ot first-time kindergartners, by trequency ot positive approaches to learning behaviors 
in tali of kindergarten year: Fali 2010 

Percent 



Frequency of positive approaches to learning behaviors in fall of kindergarten year 


NOTE: The Approaches to Learning scale is based on teachers' reports on how students rate in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to 
learn, learning independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow dassroom rules. Possible scores on the scale range trom 1 to 4, with higher scores 
indicating that a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often. Fall Approaches to Learning scores were categorized into the anchor points on the 
original scale by rounding the mean score to the nearest whole number. Details may not sum to total because ot rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 201 0-1 1 
(ECLS-K:201 1 ), Kindergarten-First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 220.40. 


For the remaining sections of the Spotlight discussion, 
kindergartners’ mean ratings on the Approaches to 
Learning scale in the fall of kindergarten were rounded 
to the nearest whole number so that students could be 
grouped into the original categories represented by the 
4-point scale. For example, a student with an average 
rating of 2.4 would be categorized into the “sometimes” 
(value of 2) group. Overall, 26 percent of first-time 


kindergartners were rated by their teachers in the fall of 
kindergarten as demonstrating positive approaches to 
learning behaviors “very often” (average rating of 4), 

47 percent were rated as demonstrating them “often” 
(average rating of 3), 25 percent were rated as 
demonstrating them “sometimes” (average rating of 2), 
and 1 percent were rated as “never” (average rating of 1) 
demonstrating positive approaches to learning behaviors. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 5 


Spotlights 


Figure 4. Average reading scale scores of fall 2010 first-time kindergartners, by frequency of positive approaches to 
learning behaviors in fall of kindergarten year: Fall 2010, spring 2011, and spring 2012 


Scale score 

100 ^ - 



Kindergarten First grade 


Frequency of positive approaches to iearning behaviors in fali of kindergarten year 

□ Never (1) □ Sometimes (2) □ Often (3) □ Very often (4) 


NOTE:The reading assessments reflect performance on questions measuring basic skills (print familiarity letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, 
rhyming words, and word recognition); vocabulary knowledge; and reading oomprehension, including identifying information specifically stated in text 
(e.g., definitions, tacts, and supporting details), making oomplex inferences from text, and considering the text objectively and judging its appropriateness 
and quality. Possible scores for the reading assessments range from 0 to 1 00. Frequency of positive approaches to learning behaviors is derived from 
kindergartners' fall 201 0 Approaches to Learning scale scores. The Approaches to Learning scale is based on teachers' reports on how students rate in 
seven areas: attentiveness, task persistenoe, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow classroom rules. Possible 
scores on the Approaches to Learning scale range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating that a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often. Fall 
Approaches to Learning scores were categorized into the anchor points on the original scale by rounding the average score to the nearest whole number. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 201 0-1 1 
(ECLS-K:201 1), Kindergarten-First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 220.40. 


First-time kindergartners’ average Approaches to 
Learning rating categories in the fall of kindergarten were 
positively associated with their reading and mathematics 
scores in kindergarten and first grade. In both subjects, 
students who received an average rating of “never” on the 
Approaches to Learning scale in the fall of kindergarten 
had the lowest scores at each time period, and those 
who had an average rating of “very often” in the fall of 
kindergarten had the highest reading and mathematics 


scores. For example, students who were rated as “never” 
demonstrating positive approaches to learning behaviors 
by teachers in the fall of kindergarten had an average 
spring first-grade reading score of 52 points, compared 
with an average score of 63 points for those with a 
rating of “sometimes,” 71 points for those with a rating 
of “often,” and 76 points for those with a rating of 
“very often.” 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


6 The Condition of Education 2015 


Spotlights 


Figure 5. Average mathematics scale scores ot taii 2010 tirst-time kindergartners, by frequency of positive approaches 
to learning behaviors in fail of kindergarten year: Fail 2010, spring 2011, and spring 2012 

Scale score 



Kindergarten First grade 


Frequency of positive approaches to learning behaviors in fall of kindergarten year 

□ Never (1) Sometimes (2) □ Often (3) □ Very often (4) 

NOTE: The mathematics assessments reflect performance on questions on number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial 
sense; data analysis, statistics, and probability (measured with a set of simple questions assessing children's ability to read a graph); and prealgebra 
skills such as identification of patterns. Possible soores for the mathematics assessments range from 0 to 96. Frequency of positive approaches to learning 
behaviors is derived from kindergartners' fall 2010 Approaohes to Learning scale scores. The Approaches to Learning scale is based on teaohers' reports 
on how students rate in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow 
olassroom rules. Possible scores on the Approaches to Learning scale range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating that a child exhibits positive learning 
behaviors more often. Fall Approaches to Learning scores were categorized into the anchor points on the original soale by rounding the average score to the 
nearest whole number. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Eduoation, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 201 0-1 1 
(ECLS-K:201 1 ), Kindergarten-First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 220.40. 


First-time kindergartners who received an average 
Approaches to Learning rating of “never” in the fall of 
kindergarten not only scored the lowest on the reading 
and mathematics assessments at each time point, but 
they also had not yet caught up by the next round of data 
collection to the performance at the prior assessment time 
of their peers who had received a rating of “very often” 
in the fall of kindergarten. For example, the average fall 


kindergarten mathematics scores for students with average 
Approaches to Learning ratings in the fall of kindergarten 
of “often” (31 points) or “very often” (36 points) were 
higher than the average spring kindergarten mathematics 
score (i.e., the score at the end of the kindergarten year) 
for students with an average Approaches to Learning 
rating of “never” in the fall of kindergarten (29 points). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 7 


Spotlights 


Figure 6. Average science scaie scores of fail 2010 first-time kindergartners, by frequency of positive approaches to 
learning behaviors in fall of kindergarten year: Spring 2011 and spring 2012 


Scale score 


47 


F 



Kindergarten 


First grade 


Frequency ot positive approaches to learning behaviors in fall of kindergarten year 

□ Never (1) □ Sometimes (2) □ Often (3) □ Very often (4) 


NOTE: Science was not assessed in the fall of kindergarten. The science assessments reflect performance on questions on physical sciences, life sciences, 
environmental sciences, and scientific inquiry. Possible scores for the science assessments range from 0 to 47. Frequency of positive approaches to learning 
behaviors is derived from kindergartners' foil 201 0 Approaches to Learning scale scores. The Approaches to Learning scale is based on teachers' reports 
on how students rote in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow 
classroom rules. Possible scores on the Approaches to Learning scale range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating that a child exhibits positive learning 
behaviors more often. Fall Approaches to Learning scores were categorized into the anchor points on the original scale by rounding the average score to the 
nearest whole number. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 201 0-1 1 
(ECLS-K:201 1 ), Kindergarten-First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 220.40. 


Patterns of performance in science were consistent with 
those observed in reading and mathematics. First-time 
kindergartners who received an average Approaches to 
Learning rating of “never” in the fall of kindergarten had 
the lowest science scores in the spring of kindergarten 
(17 points) and in the spring of first grade (21 points), 
and those receiving a rating of “very often” in the fall of 
kindergarten had the highest scores in the spring of 


kindergarten (23 points) and in the spring of first grade 
(29 points).'* In addition, the average spring kindergarten 
science score for students with a “very often” Approaches 
to Learning rating in the fall of kindergarten (23 points) 
was higher than the average spring first-grade science score 
(i.e., the score at the end of the following school year) for 
those students with an average rating of “never” in the fall 
of kindergarten (21 points). 


Endnotes: 

* Zill, N., and West, J. (2001). Entering Kindergarten: 

A Portrait of American Children When They Begin School: 
Findings From the Condition of Education 2000 (NCES 
2001-035). National Center for Education Statistics, 
Institute of Education Sciences, Lf.S. Department of 
Education. Washington, DC. 

^ Entwisle, D.R., and Alexander, K.L. (1998). Facilitating 
the Transition to First Grade: The Nature of Transition 


and Research on Factors Affecting It. The Elementary 
School Journal, 98{A)\ 351-364. 

^ Fall 2011 first-grade scores are excluded from the 
Spotlight discussion because data were only collected from 
a subsample of ECLS-K:2011 students at that time period. 
^ Science was not assessed in the fall of 
kindergarten. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Educational attainment. Poverty, Racial/ethnic group 

220.40 and 220.45 

Related indicators: Preprimary Enrollment (indicator 7), 

Kindergarten Entry Status: On-Time, Delayed-Entry, and 
Repeating Kindergartners \Jhe Condition of Education 2013 
Spotlight] 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


8 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Spotlights 


Disparities in Educational Outcomes Among 
Male Youth 

In 2013, the percentage of males ages 25-29 who had completed a bachelor's 
or higher degree was higher for Asians (55 percent) than for Whites (37 percent), 
those of Two or more races (29 percent), Biacks (17 percent), and Hispanics 
(13 percent). This percentage was also higher for White males and males of Two or 
more races than for their Hispanic and Black peers. 


The United States has seen progress in many areas 
related to the education of its young people. Despite 
these achievements, disparities in educational and 
other outcomes persist in the aggregate for male youth 
compared to their female peers in general, and for boys 
and young men of color in particular.* In February 2014, 
President Barack Obama launched My Brother’s Keeper, 
an initiative designed to help address underlying issues 
and improve the expected life outcomes for those boys and 
young men of color who continue to struggle.^ As part 
of this undertaking, the Federal Interagency Forum on 
Child and Family Statistics and many of its component 


agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education, 
were tasked with making available relevant statistics to 
track progress in closing gaps.^ With a focus on boys and 
young men of color,'* this Spotlight features a selection 
of national-level measures using data from the latest 
available year to describe the educational pipeline that 
young people navigate. Information on certain measures 
that tend to be associated with educational outcomes, 
such as household poverty, are also included to frame 
the education data in the broader context of young 
people’s lives. 


Figure 1. Percentage distribution of males ages 0-17, by race/ethnicity and presence of parents in household: 2013 


Percent 



Total White Black Hispanic Asian Other 


Race/ethnicity 

□ Two parents □ Mother only □ Father only □ No parent 

NOTE: "Two parents" refers to all children who have both a mother and father Identified In the household, including biological, step, and adoptive parents. 
"Mother only" and "father only" refer to children for whom only one parent in the household has been identified, whether biological, step, or adoptive. Race 
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. "Other" includes race and ethnicity categories such as American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native 
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 2013. Retrieved May 201 5, from http://mbk.ed.aov/data/ . 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


10 The Condition of Education 2015 






Spotlights 


Living with two parents is associated with positive 
educational, economic, and other life outcomes.^ The 
majority of male youth ages 0-17 lived with two parents 
in 2013 (87 percent of Asians, 77 percent of Whites, and 
65 percent of Hispanics); Black males were the exception: 


38 percent lived with two parents. Instead, 50 percent of 
young Black males lived with only their mother. Families 
headed by single parents, particularly single mothers, are 
associated with a higher incidence of poverty.'’ 



Total White Black Hispanic Asian Other 


Race/ethnicity 


NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. "Other" includes race and ethnicity categcries such as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, 201 2. Retrieved May 2015, from httD://mbk.ed.aov/data/ . 


The percentages of Black and Hispanic males ages 0-17 
living in poverty in 2012 (38 and 33 percent, respectively) 
were higher than the percentages for Whites and Asians 
(12 percent each). There were no measurable differences 
between males and females (overall or within the racial/ 
ethnic groups) in the percentages of children living in 
different household types or the percentage living in 


poverty. Research suggests that living in poverty during 
early childhood is associated with lower than average 
academic performance that begins in kindergarten^ and 
extends through elementary and high school. Living in 
poverty during early childhood is also associated with 
lower than average rates of school completion.* 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 1 1 


Spotlights 


Regarding academic performance, gaps in learning 
behaviors, knowledge, and skills among children 
in various racial/ethnic groups are found as early as 
infancy, preschool, and kindergarten.®’^ Differences in 
achievement are also observed in the National Assessment 


of Educational Progress (NAEP) at grades 4, 8, and 12.'° 
As the 12th grade marks a key period of transition 
from school to postsecondary education and the labor 
force, reading and mathematics scores at grade 12 are 
highlighted here. 


Figure 3. Average reading scale scores of 12fh-grade sfudenfs, by race/efhnicity and sex: 2013 



Total 


White 


Black Hispanic Asian 


Race/ethnicity 


Pacific American Twc or 

Islander Indian/Alaska more races 
Native 


I I Male Q Female 

t Reporting standards not met. Either there are tao few cases for a reliable estimate or the ooefficient ot variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 

NOTE: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. Raoe categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2013. Retrieved May 201 5, from 
http://mbk.ed.aov/datg/ . 


NAEP reading scores" in 2013 were higher at grade 12 
for female than male students overall (292 vs. 282) and 
for students in most of the racial/ethnic groups; however, 
the apparent difference for students of Two or more races 
was not significant. Among 12th-grade males, Asians 
(291), Whites (290), and those of Two or more races 
(288) scored higher, on average, than Hispanics (272), 
American Indians/Alaska Natives (266), and Blacks (262); 
Hispanic males also scored higher than Black males. 


Average reading scores were higher in 2013 than in 2002 
for 12th-grade males who were White (290 vs. 281) and 
Asian (291 vs. 280), but no measurable differences were 
found for males in the other racial/ethnic groups for 
which data were available. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


12 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 



Spotlights 


Figure 4. Average mathematics scale scores of 12th-grade students, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2013 


Scale score 



Islander 


Race/ethnicity 

I I Male Q Female 


Indian/Alaska 

Native 


more races 


t Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 

NOTE: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 300 at grade 1 2. Race categories exclude persons of 
Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. 2013. Retrieved May 201 5. from 
http://mbk.ed.aov/datg/ . 


In contrast to the reading scores, NAEP mathematics 
scores,*^ were higher overall for males than for females 
among students in 12th grade in 2013 (154 vs. 151). Math 
scores were also higher for male than female students 
among Whites (162 vs. 160) and Asians (176 vs. 171), 
but not measurably different between male and female 
students in the other racial/ethnic groups. Among male 


12th-grade students, Asians had the highest average math 
score (176); scores were also higher for White males (162) 
and males of Two or more races (157) than for Hispanic 
(141), American Indian/Alaska Native (140), and Black 
males (132). In addition, Hispanic males scored higher 
than Black males in the 12th grade. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 13 


Spotlights 


Figure 5. Average mathematics scale scores of male 12th-grade students, by race/ethnicity: 2005 and 2013 


Scale score 



Race/ethnicity 

□ 2005 □ 2013 


— Not available. 

t Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 

’ 2005 data include Pacific Islander students. 

NOTE: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 300 at grade 1 2. Race categories exclude persons of 
Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. 201 3. Retrieved May 201 5, from 
http://mbk.ed.aov/datg/ . 


Average mathematics scores were higher in 2013 than in 
2005 for 12th-grade males in each racial/ethnic group 
for which data were available: White (162 vs. 157), 


Black (132 vs. 126), Hispanic (141 vs. 133), and Asian 
(176 vs. 163). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


14 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Spotlights 


Following secondary education, many young people 
make transitions to employment, further schooling, or 
both. Some, however, engage in delinquent or criminal 
behaviors and enter the juvenile or adult correction 
systems. Research indicates that contact with these 


systems typically impacts youth negatively by, among 
other things, interrupting their education and increasing 
the likelihood that they will drop out of school 
altogether.*^ Criminal convictions can also have a negative 
impact on employment outcomes.*^ 


Figure 6. Rate per 100,000 of placement of juveniles in residentiai faciiities, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2011 



Total 


White 


Black Hispanic 


Race/ethnicity 


Asian American 

Indian/Alaska 
Native 


I I Male Q Female 


NOTE: Data from the Census at Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) are based on a 1-day count of youth younger than age 21 held in a juvenile 
residential placement facility for an offense. CJRP does not include facilities used exclusively for abused/neglected children, mental health, or drug treatment. 
Nor are federal or adult jails or prisons included. Therefore, counts based on CJRP data do not include youth younger than 1 8 tried in criminal courts and 
confined in adult correctional facilities. Rate is per 1 00,000 persons ages 1 2 through the extended age at juvenile court jurisdiction in each state. More 
information about the extended age of juvenile court jurisdiction can be found at http://www.oiidD.aov/oistatbb/structure process/aa04106.asp . Data for 
Pacific Isianders and those of Two or more races are not available. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SCURCE: U.S. Department at Justice, Cffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Census of Juveniles in Residential Plaoement, Easy Access to 
Juvenile Populations, 201 1 . Retrieved May 201 5, tram http://mbk.ed.aov/datg/ . 


The rate of juvenile placement in residential correction 
facilities*^ in 2011 was about 6 times higher for males 
than females (280 per 100,000 persons vs. 46 per 100,000 
persons). This rate was also considerably higher for Black 
male youth than for male or female youth of any other 
racial/ethnic group. The rate of residential placement for 
Black males in 2011 was 733 per 100,000, which was 
1.5 times the rate for American Indian/Alaska Native 
males (486 per 100,000), more than twice the rate for 
Hispanic males (312 per 100,000), nearly 5 times the rate 
for White males (153 per 100,000), and over 14 times the 
rate for Asian males (50 per 100,000). Black males made 
up over one-third (35 percent) of all youth in residential 
placement in 2011. 


Additionally, males ages 18-24 had notably higher 
rates of imprisonment in state facilities*^ than females 
in 2012: the rate was 1,060 per 100,000 persons for 
males versus 65 per 100,000 persons for females. 
Moreover, the imprisonment rate for Black males was 
substantially higher than the rate for males or females 
of any other racial/ethnic subgroup. For example, the 
2012 imprisonment rate for Black males (3,102 per 
100,000) was more than twice the rate for Hispanic males 
(1,165 per 100,000), nearly 7 times the rate for White 
males (446 per 100,000), and more than 26 times the rate 
for Black females (118 per 100,000). In 2012, Black males 
made up 41 percent of all imprisoned young adults ages 
18-24 (see My Brother’s Keeper Data ). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 15 


Spotlights 


Figure 7. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds who have not completed high school, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2014 


Percent 



Native 

Race/ethnicIty 

I I Male Q Female 


! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

t Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian ncninstitutional population. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Populaticn Survey, 2014. Retrieved May 201 5, from http://mbk.ed.aov/data/ . 


In terms of educational attainment,*^ a higher percentage 
of male than female 18- to 24-year-olds (young adults) 
had not completed high school in 2014; this was true 
both overall (19 vs. 15 percent) and among Whites 
(16 vs. 12 percent) and Hispanics (28 vs. 21 percent). 
There was no measurable difference between males 


and females in the other racial/ethnic groups. Among 
male young adults, a higher percentage of Hispanics 
(28 percent) than Blacks (20 percent). Whites 
(16 percent), and Asians (11 percent) had not completed 
high school. In addition, this percentage was higher for 
Black males than for White males and Asian males. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


16 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Spotlights 


Figure 8. Percentage of male 18- to 24-year-olds who have not completed high school, by race/ethnicity; 
2000 and 2014 



Total 


White 


Black Hispanic Asian' 


Race/ethnicity 


Pacifc American Two or 

Islander Indian/Alaska more races 
Native 


□ 2000 □ 2014 


— Not available. 

t Reporting standards not met. Either there are too fe\A/ oases tor a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 
’ Data for 2000 include Pacific Islanders. 

NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutional population. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2014. Retrieved May 2015, from http://mbk.ed.aov/data/ . 


From 2000 to 2014, the percentage of male young adults 
who had not completed high school decreased in most 
racial/ethnic groups: White (20 vs. 16 percent). Black 
(33 vs. 20 percent), Hispanic (46 vs. 28 percent), and 


Asian (20 vs. 11 percent). The decreases for Blacks and 
Hispanics were among the largest observed for male 
young adults of any racial/ethnic group for which data 
were available. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 17 


Spotlights 


Figure 9. Percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in 2- and 4-year colleges, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2013 


Percent 



Islander Indlan/Alaska more races 
Native 


Race/ethnicity 


I I Male Q Female 

! Interpret data with caution. The coetficient ot variation (CV) tor this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

t Reporting standards nat met. Either there are too tew cases tor a reliable estimate or the coefficient ot variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys ot the oivilian noninstitutional population. Raoe oategories exclude persons ot Hispanic ethnicity. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department ot Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 201 3. Retrieved May 2015, from http://mbk.ed.aov/datg/ . 


People with higher levels of education tend to have better 
economic outcomes than their peers with lower levels of 
education.*® For example, in 2014, the employment rate 
for persons ages 25-64 with a bachelor’s or higher degree 
was 82 percent, compared with a rate of 73 percent for 
those with some college education but no degree and a 
rate of 55 percent for those with no high school credential 
(see Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 501.50) . 
Differences in progress toward achieving these higher 
education levels were noted among young adults in 2013. 
Among persons ages 18-24, a higher percentage of females 


than males were enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college in 
2013, both overall (43 vs. 37 percent) and among Whites, 
Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians/Alaska Natives. 
Among male young adults, a higher percentage of Asians 
(64 percent) were enrolled in college than their peers 
who were of Two or more races (48 percent). White 
(38 percent). Black (31 percent), Hispanic (29 percent), 
and American Indian/Alaska Native (19 percent). This 
percentage was also higher for males who were of Two or 
more races and White males than for Black, Hispanic, 
and American Indian/Alaska Native males. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


18 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Spotlights 


Figure 10. Percentage of male 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in 2- and 4-year colieges, by race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2013 


Percent 



Islander Indlan/Alaska more races 
Native 


Race/ethnicity 


□ 2000 □ 2013 

— Not available. 

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

t Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 
’ Data for 2000 include Pacific Islanders. 

NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutional population. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 201 3. Retrieved May 201 5, from http://mbk.ed.aov/data/ . 


From 2000 to 2013, the percentage of male young 
adults who were enrolled in college increased for Blacks 
(25 vs. 31 percent) and Hispanics (18 vs. 29 percent). 


No measurable differences were observed for male young 
adults in the other racial/ethnic groups during this period. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 19 



Spotlights 


Figure 11. Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds who have completed a bachelor's or higher degree, by race/ethnicity and 
sex: 2013 



Total 


White 


Black Hispanic Asian 


Race/ethnicity 


Pacific American Two or 

Islander Indian/Alaska more races 
Native 


I I Male Q Female 

I Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

T Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 
NOTE: Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutional population. Race categories exolude persons of Hispanio ethnicity. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 104.20. 


In 2013, the percentage of persons ages 25-29 who had 
completed a bachelor’s or higher degree was also higher 
for females than for males overall (37 vs. 30 percent) 
and among Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. For 
males ages 25-29, the percentage who had completed 
a bachelor’s or higher degree was higher for Asians 
(55 percent) than for Whites (37 percent), those of Two 
or more races (29 percent). Blacks (17 percent), and 
Hispanics (13 percent). This percentage was higher for 
White males and males of Two or more races than for 


their Hispanic and Black peers; it was also higher for 
Black males than for Hispanic males. 

From 2003 to 2013, the percentage of males ages 
25-29 who had completed a bachelor’s or higher degree 
increased for Whites (31 vs. 37 percent) and Hispanics 
(8 vs. 13 percent). No measurable differences were found 
during this period for males ages 25-29 who were Black, 
Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, or of Two or 
more races. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


20 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Spotlights 


Endnotes: 

* Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., KewalRamani, A., 
Zhang, J., Kristapovich, R, and Manning, E. (2012). 
Higher Education: Gaps in Access and Persistence Study 
(NCES 2012-046). U.S. Department of Education, 
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office. 

^ Presidential Memorandum — Creating and Expanding 
Ladders of Opportunity for Boys and Young Men 
of Color, http : // www. whitehouse. gov/ the-press- 
office/ 2014/02/27/ presidential-memo randum-creating- 
and-expanding-ladders-opportunity-boys- , accessed 
December 2014. 

^ More information can be found at http://mbk.ed.gov/ 
data/ . 

To a large extent, the phrase “boys and young men of 
color” refers to males who are Black, Hispanic, Native 
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or 
Alaska Native. In most of the reference datasets, data are 
reported for each of these groups. In a few of the datasets, 
data are reported for Blacks, Hispanics, and persons of 
“Other” races and ethnicities. The “Other” group generally 
includes races and ethnicities such as Asian, Native 
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska 
Native, and Two or more races. 

^ Child Trends Databank. (2014). Family structure. 
Available at http: // www. childtrends . org/? indicators=family- 
structure , accessed January 2015. 

^ U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables — Families. 
Retrieved February 2015, from https:/ /www.census.gov/ 
hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/families.html . 

^ Mulligan, G.M., Hastedt, S., and McCarroll, J.C. (2012). 
First-Time Kindergartners in 2010—11: First Findings 
From the Kindergarten Rounds of the Early Childhood 
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010— 11 
(ECLS-K201 1) (NCES 2012-049). U.S. Department 
of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 
Education Statistics. 

® The Condition of Education 2009: See Early 
Development of Children and Knowledge and Skills of 
Young Children. 


® Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family 
Statistics. America’s Children: Key National Indicators of 
Well-Being, 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 
Printing Office. 

More information can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/ 
nationsreportcard/ . 

' * The National Assessment of Educational Progress 
(NAEP) assesses student performance in reading at grades 4, 
8, and 12. NAEP reading scores range from 0 to 500. 

NAEP mathematics scores range from 0 to 500 for 
grades 4 and 8. At grade 12, mathematics scores range 
from 0 to 300, following a revision to the assessment 
in 2005. 

Holman, B. and Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The Dangers of 
Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention 
and Other Secure Congregate Facilities, Baltimore, Maryland: 
Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

Solomon, A.L. (2012). In Search of a Job: Criminal 
Records as Barriers to Employment. NIJ Journal 270-. 42-5 1 . 

This rate is per 100,000 persons ages 12 through the 
extended age of juvenile court jurisdiction in each state. 
More information can be found at http://www.ojjdp.gov/ 
oistatbb/structure process/qa04l06.asp . The extended 
age varies by state, but most set the age limit at 20. 

Data are based on a 1-day count of youth younger than 
age 21 held in a juvenile residential placement facility for 
an offense. 

In 2012, admissions to state prisons made up 91 percent 
of all admissions to prisons (including both federal and 
state). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases, 
1991-2012, NCJ 243920. 

The educational attainment data do not include persons 
in institutionalized settings, such as prisons and correctional 
facilities. Therefore, understatement or overstatement of the 
data for groups with comparably high percentages of people 
in these populations is possible. 

The Condition of Education 2015'. See Employment Rates 
and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment 
( http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator cbc.asp l and 
Annual Earnings of Young Adults ( http://nces.ed.gov/ 
programs/coe/indicator cba.asp) . 


Reference tables: My Brother’s Keeper ( http://mbk.ed.gov/ Glossary: Educational attainment (Current Population Survey), 

data/ ): Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 104.20 Poverty, Radal/ethnic group 

and 501.50 

Related indicators: Postsecondary Attainment: Differences 
by Socioeconomic Status (Spotlight), Educational Attainment 
(indicator 1), Employment Rates and Unemployment Rates 
by Educational Attainment (indicator 4), Children Living in 
Poverty (indicator 5), Reading Performance (indicator 23), 

Mathematics Performance (indicator 24) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 21 


Spotlights 


Postsecondary Attainment: Differences by 
Socioeconomic Status 

A smaller percentage of students of low socioeconomic status (SES) than students 
of middle SES attained a bachelor's or higher degree within 8 years of high school 
completion (14 vs. 29 percent), and percentages for both groups were smaller 
than the percentage of high-SES students who attained this level of education 
(60 percent). 


Postsecondary education is increasingly seen as an 
important step for obtaining beneficial long-term 
occupational and economic outcomes. Lower levels 
of educational attainment are linked to higher 
unemployment rates and lower earnings.' Although 
an increasing number of students have enrolled in 
postsecondary institutions over the last several decades, 
there are still differences in the characteristics of 
students who complete various levels of postsecondary 
education. In particular, students from families with a 
low socioeconomic status (SES) are less likely than those 
from families with a higher SES to obtain higher levels 
of postsecondary education.^ This spotlight examines 
differences in students’ educational attainment by SES, 
as well as how other variables may differentially relate 
to students’ educational attainment by SES group (low, 
middle, and high). 


The Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002) 
followed a nationally representative cohort of students and 
surveyed them at certain points during their secondary 
and postsecondary education. The first wave of data 
included mathematics and reading assessments and was 
collected in 2002, when the students were in 10th grade. 
The students’ parents were also surveyed in this wave, 
and students’ SES was constructed from their parents’ 
occupation, highest level of education, and income. A first 
follow-up wave was collected 2 years later, in 2004, when 
the majority of the students were in 12th grade. Both 
the 2002 and 2004 survey waves included self-reported 
questions about the educational expectations students had 
and the sources of information they consulted regarding 
college. Two additional follow-up survey waves were 
collected, one in 2006 and one in 2012. The 2006 wave 
assessed the students’ current college enrollment status, 
and the 2012 wave asked students to report on their 
highest level of educational attainment. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


22 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Spotlights 


Figure 1. Percentage distribution ot highest ievel of educotionoi attainment of spring 2002 high school sophomores in 



Less than high High school Some postsecondary Postsecondary Associate's Bachelor's or 

school completion completion education' certificate degree higher degree 


Highest educational attainment 

□ Low SES □ Middle SES □ High SES 

^ Includes education at any type of postsecondary institution, but with no earned postsecondory credential. 

NOTE: Students' SES is based on their parents' education and occupations as well as the family income in 2002 and is measured by a composite score on 
these variables. The low" SES group is the lowest quartiie; the "middle" SES group is the middle two quartiles; and the "high" SES group is the upper quartile. 
Highest level of educational attainment was self-reported by participants. High school completion includes GEDs. Detail may not sum to totals because 
of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study ot 2002 (ELS:2002), Base Year and Third Follow- 
up. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 1 04.91 . 


The percentage of 2002 10th graders who had attained 
different levels of education by 2012 varied by SES. A 
larger percentage of low-SES students (7 percent) than 
of middle-SES students (3 percent) had not completed 
high school by 2012, and both percentages were larger 
than the percentage of high-SES students (1 percent) 
who had not completed high school. Similarly, by 2012, 
a larger percentage of low-SES students (21 percent) 
than of middle-SES students (13 percent) had completed 
high school as their highest level of education, and both 
percentages were larger than the percentage of high-SES 
students (3 percent) who did so. The percentage of 
students who attained some postsecondary education 
by 2012 was not measurably different for low- and 


middle-SES students (36 and 35 percent, respectively), 
but both percentages were larger than the percentage of 
high-SES students who had some postsecondary education 
(24 percent). This same pattern was evident for the 
percentage of students whose highest level of education 
was a postsecondary certificate. A larger percentage 
of middle-SES students (10 percent) than of low-SES 
and high-SES students (8 and 7 percent, respectively) 
completed an associate’s degree by 2012. A smaller 
percentage of low-SES than middle-SES students attained 
a bachelor’s or higher degree by 2012 (14 vs. 29 percent), 
and the percentages for both groups were smaller than the 
percentage of high-SES students whose highest level of 
education was a bachelor’s or higher degree (60 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 23 


Spotlights 


Figure 2. Percentage of students' expected levels of educational attainment of spring 2002 high school sophomores, 
by socioeconomic status (SES): 2002 and 2004 

Expected level of educational attainment 

Low SES 

Don't know 
High school diploma or GED 
Attend or complete 2-year college 
Attend 4-year college, degree incomplete 
Bachelor's degree 
Advanced degree 



Middle SES 

Don't know 
High school diploma or GED 
Attend or complete 2-year college 
Attend 4-year college, degree incomplete 
Bachelor's degree 
Advanced degree 

High SES 

Don't know 
High school diploma or GED 
Attend or complete 2-year college 
Attend 4-year college, degree incomplete 
Bachelor's degree 
Advanced degree 




Q 2002 

Q 2004 



100 


NOTE: Students' SES is based on their parents' education and occupations as well as the family income in 2002 and is measured by a composite score on 
these variables. The "low" SES group is the lowest quartile; the "middle" SES group is the middle two quartiles; and the "high" SES group is the upper quartile. 
Expected levels of educational attainment were measured by students' response to the question, "As things stand now, how tar in school do you think you will 
get?" Detail may not sum to totals because ot rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Base Year and First Follow-up. 
See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 1 04.92. 


Students’ educational expectations have been shown 
to be related to their eventual educational attainment.^ 
Expectations for educational attainment were measured 
in both 2002 and 2004, when students were in 10th and 
12th grade, respectively. In all SES groups, the percentage 
of students who expected to earn a 2-year degree was 
higher in 2004 than in 2002. The percentage of students 
expecting to earn a bachelor’s degree was smaller in 2004 
than in 2002 for those students from low-SES (25 vs. 

33 percent) and middle-SES (33 vs. 37 percent) families, 
and the same pattern emerged for expectations to earn an 
advanced degree. 

In addition to changes over time within SES groups, 
there were differences between SES groups in students’ 
educational expectations. These patterns were similar for 
both years, so only the 2004 expectations are discussed 
here. In 2004, a larger percentage of low-SES students 
(11 percent) than of middle-SES students (6 percent) 

For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide 


expected their highest level of educational attainment 
to be a high school credential, and both percentages 
were larger than the percentage of high-SES students 
(2 percent) who expected to attain this level of education. 
Similarly, a larger percentage of low-SES students 
(22 percent) than of middle-SES students (17 percent) 
expected they would attend or complete a 2-year college 
as their highest level of educational attainment, and both 
percentages were larger than the percentage of high-SES 
students (5 percent) who expected to do so. Conversely, 
in 2004, a smaller percentage of low-SES students 
(25 percent) than of middle- and high-SES students (both 
33 percent) expected to earn a bachelor’s degree. Also, a 
smaller percentage of low-SES students (22 percent) than 
of middle-SES students (30 percent) expected to earn an 
advanced degree, and these percentages were both smaller 
than the percentage of high-SES students who expected to 
earn an advanced degree (52 percent). 


to Sources. 


24 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Spotlights 


Figure 3. Percentage of spring 2002 high schooi sophomores who expected to attend o postsecondary institution 
seeking information about coilege from various sources in 2004, by socioeconomic status (SES) 


Source of college Information 

School counselor 

Teacher 
Coach 
Parent 
Friend 
Sibling 
Other relative 
College publication or website 
College representative 
College search guide 



Q Low SES 
□ Middle SES 
Q High SES 


Percent 


NOTE; Students' SES is based on their parents' education and occupations as well as the family income in 2002 and is measured by a composite soore on 
these variabies.The "low" SES group is the lowest quartile; the "middle" SES group is the middle two quartiles; and the “high" SES group is the upper quartile. 
Information seeking was measured by students' responses to the question, "Where have you gone for information about the entrance requirements ot various 
colleges?" Only those students who indicated they planned to attend some postsecondary institution were asked this question. Students with expectations 
below postsecondary attendance were instructed to skip this question. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Eduoation, National Center for Eduoation Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Base Year and First Follow-up. 
See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 104.93. 


Navigating the college application and enrollment 
process often involves seeking out assistance from others. 
In 2002 and 2004, students who expected to attend 
a postsecondary institution were asked what sources 
they had gone to for information about the entrance 
requirements of various colleges.^ Generally, a larger 
percentage of these students sought information in 2004 
than in 2002 across SES groups. In 2004, across all 
students who intended to pursue postsecondary-level 
study, a smaller percentage of low-SES students went 
to their parents for information about college than 
middle-SES students did (43 vs. 59 percent), and these 
percentages were both smaller than the percentage 
of high-SES students who went to their parents for 


information (73 percent). Similarly, a smaller percentage 
of low-SES than middle-SES students went to college 
representatives (51 vs. 65 percent), college publications 
and websites (54 vs. 59 percent), or college search guides 
(43 vs. 48 percent) for information. The percentages of 
low- and middle-SES students who sought information 
from these three sources were smaller than the percentage 
of high-SES students who sought information from 
these three sources (80, 64, and 60 percent, respectively). 
Conversely, a larger percentage of low-SES students 
(33 percent) than of middle-SES (29 percent) and 
high-SES (28 percent) students sought advice from 
a sibling. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 25 


Spotlights 


Figure 4. Of spring 2002 high school sophomores with postsecondary pions who earned a bacheior's degree or 

higher by 2012, percentage who sought coiiege information from various sources in 2004, by socioeconomic 
status (SES) 


Source of college information 

School oounselor 

Teaoher 
Coach 
Parent 
Friend 
Sibling 
Other relative 
College publication or website 
College representative 
College searoh guide 



r~| Low SES 
□ Middle SES 
[~| High SES 


Percent 


NOTE: Students' SES is based on their parents' education and occupations as well as the family income in 2002 and is measured by a composite score on 
these variabies.The “low" SES group is the lowest quartile; the “middie" SES group is the middie two quartiles; and the "high" SES group is the upper quartile. 
information seeking was measured by students' responses to the question "Where have you gone for information about the entrance requirements of 
various coileges?" 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Nationai Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), Base Year, First Foiiow-up, 
and Third Foliow-up. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tabie 1 04.93. 


Among students who planned postsecondary-level study 
and who earned a bachelor’s or higher degree by 2012, 
there were also differences in students’ information- 
seeking patterns in 2004 by SES. Similar to the 
information-seeking for all students who expected to 
attend a postsecondary institution, a smaller percentage 
of low-SES students who obtained a bachelor’s degree 
by 2012 had gone to their parents for information 
about college than their middle-SES peers did (46 vs. 

63 percent). The percentage of low-SES and middle-SES 
students who obtained a bachelor’s degree by 2012 and 
who went to their parents for information were both 


smaller than the percentage of high-SES students who 
did so (76 percent). However, for students who earned a 
bachelor’s degree, a larger percentage of low-SES students 
(91 percent) than of middle-SES students (85 percent) 
went to their school counselors for information, and both 
percentages were larger than the percentage of high-SES 
students (81 percent) who sought information from 
their school counselor. Similarly, a larger percentage of 
low-SES students who earned a bachelor’s degree than of 
middle- and high-SES students who earned a bachelor’s 
went to their teacher, their sibling, or another relative for 
information about college. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


26 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Spotlights 


Figure 5. Percentage of spring 2002 high schooi sophomores who earned o bachelor's degree or higher by 2012, 



First quartile (lowest) Second quortile Third quartile Fourth quartile (highest) 


Mathematics achievement quartile in 2002 

□ Low SES □ Middle SES □ High SES 


NOTE: Students' SES is based on their parents' education and occupations as well as the tamily income in 2002 and is measured by a composite score on 
these variables. The low" SES group is the lowest quartile; the "middle" SES group is the middle two quartiles; and the "high" SES group is the upper quartile. 
Mathematics achievement quartiles reflect students' scores on assessments conducted in 2002. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study ot 2002 (ELS:2002), Base Year and Third Follow- 
up. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 1 04.91 . 


Academic skills are also necessary for college completion, 
and performance on the standardized assessments, 
administered during the first wave of data collection 
in 2002, are one way to examine students’ aptitudes. 

In general, a smaller percentage of low-SES students 
performed in the highest quartile of mathematics 
achievement (10 percent) while in high school 
compared to middle-SES students (23 percent), and 
both percentages were smaller than the percentage 
of high-SES students (48 percent) who scored in the 
highest quartile. However, even when performance on 
standardized assessments was similar, smaller percentages 
of high-performing low- and middle-SES students than 
of high-performing high-SES students had completed a 
bachelor’s degree within 10 years. For example, a smaller 
percentage of low-SES than middle-SES students who 
scored in the highest quartile in mathematics achievement 
had successfully completed a bachelor’s degree 10 years 


later (41 vs. 53 percent), and both percentages were 
smaller than the percentage of high-SES students who 
did so (74 percent). Additionally, a smaller percentage 
of low-SES than middle-SES students who scored in 
the third quartile in mathematics went on to complete a 
bachelor’s degree by 2012 (23 vs. 35 percent), and these 
two percentages were both smaller than the percentage 
of high-SES students who did so (61 percent). Only 
5 percent of low-SES students who scored in the lowest 
quartile on the mathematics assessment in 2002 went on 
to complete a bachelor’s degree by 2012. This percentage 
was smaller than the percentage of middle-SES students 
who scored in the lowest quartile and completed a 
bachelor’s degree (8 percent), and both percentages were 
smaller than the percentage of high-SES students who 
did so (21 percent). Similar patterns were observed for 
students’ reading achievement. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Spotlights 27 


Spotlights 


Figure 6. Percentage of spring 2002 high schooi sophomores who earned a bachelor's degree or higher by 2012, 



Not enrolled Enrolled In a 2-yeor college Enrolled In a 4-year college 


College enrollment status in 2006 

□ Low SES □ Middle SES □ High SES 


! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) tor this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

NOTE: Students' SES is based on their parents' education and occupations as well as the tamiiy income in 2002 and is measured by a composite score on 
these variabies.The “low" SES group is the lowest quartile; the “middle" SES group is the middle two quartiles; and the "high" SES group is the upper quartile. 
Enrollment in 2006 was based on postsecondary transcript data. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study ot 2002 (ELS:2002), Base Year, Second Follow-up 


and Third Follow-up. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 1 04.92. 

In regard to students’ eventual degree attainment, it is 
also important to consider in what type of postsecondary 
institution students are enrolled and how soon after high 
school they enrolled in college. While smaller percentages 
of low- and middle-SES students than high-SES students 
completed a bachelor’s or higher degree by 2012 overall, 
this pattern was even more pronounced for students who 
were not enrolled in a 4-year college in 2006, which was 
2 years after high school completion for most students. For 
example, the percentages of low- and middle-SES students 
not enrolled in any postsecondary institution in 2006 
who went on to complete a bachelor’s or higher degree by 
2012 (2 percent or less) were smaller than the percentage 


of high-SES students (12 percent) who were not enrolled 
in 2006 and went on to complete a bachelor’s or higher 
degree by 2012. In addition, a smaller percentage of 
low-SES than middle-SES students who were enrolled in 
a 2-year college in 2006 went on to complete a bachelor’s 
degree by 2012 (15 vs. 21 percent), and both percentages 
were smaller than the percentage of high-SES students 
who did so (34 percent). Even for those students who 
were enrolled in a 4-year college in 2006, a smaller 
percentage of low-SES than middle-SES students went on 
to complete a bachelor’s or higher degree by 2012 (50 vs. 
60 percent), and both percentages were smaller than the 
percentage of high-SES students who did so (77 percent). 


Endnotes: 

* See Annual Earning of Young Adults ( http://nces.ed.gov/ 
programs/coe/indicator cba.asp ) and Employment Rates 
and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment 
( http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator cbc.asp ) 

^ Long, B.T. (2007). The Contributions of Economics to 
the Study of College Access and Success. Teachers College 
Record, 109{IQ)-. 2367-2443. 


^ Mello, Z.R. (2008). Gender Variation in Developmental 
Trajectories of Educational and Occupational Expectations 
and Attainment From Adolescence to Adulthooa. 
Developmental Psychology, 44{A)\ 1069-1080. 

Only those students who indicated they planned to attend 
some postsecondary institution were asked this question. 
Students with expectations below postsecondary attendance 
were instructed to skip this question. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Educational attainment 

104.91, 104.92, and 104.93 

Related indicators: Educational Attainment (indicator 1), 

Annual Earnings of Young Adults (indicator 3), Characteristics 
of Postsecondary Students (indicator 32) 

For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


28 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


This page intentionally left blank. 


The indicators in this chapter of The Condition of Education report on educational attainment and economic outcomes 
for the United States as a whole. The level of education attained by an individual has implications for his or her median 
earnings and other labor outcomes, such as unemployment. Comparisons at the national level to other industrialized 
nations provide insight into our global competitiveness. In addition, this chapter contains indicators on key 
demographic characteristics, such as poverty. 

This chapter’s indicators, as well as additional indicators on population characteristics, are available at The Condition of 
Education website: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe . 


30 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 



Chapter 1 

Population Characteristics 


Attainment 

Indicator 1 . Educational Attainment 32 

Indicator 2. International Educational Attainment 36 

Economic Outcomes 

Indicator 3. Annual Earnings of Young Adults 42 

Indicator 4. Employment Rates and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment 46 

Demographics 

Indicator 5. Children Living in Poverty 50 


Population Characteristics 31 



Indicator 7 

Educational Attainment 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Attainment 


In 2014, some 91 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds had received at least a high schooi 
dipioma or its equivaient. Between 1990 and 2014, the size of the White-Biack 
gap in attainment of a high schooi dipioma or its equivaient narrowed from 8 to 
4 percentage points, and the size of the White-Hispanic gap narrowed from 32 to 
21 percentage points. 


Educational attainment refers to the highest level of 
education completed (e.g., a high school diploma or 
equivalency certificate, a bachelor’s degree, or a master’s 
degree). Between 1990 and 2014, educational attainment 
rates among 25- to 29-year-olds increased. The percentage 
who had received at least a high school diploma or its 
equivalent increased from 86 to 91 percent, with most 


of the change (4 percentage points) occurring between 
2004 and 2014. The percentage who had completed a 
bachelor’s or higher degree increased from 23 percent in 
1990 to 34 percent in 2014; and the percentage who had 
completed a master’s or higher degree increased from 
5 percent in 1995 to 8 percent in 2014. 


Figure 1 . Percentage of 25- to 29-yeor-olds who completed bachelor's or higher and master's or higher degrees, by sex: 
Selected years, 1990-2014 


Bachelor's or higher degree Master's or higher degree 


Percent 



Percent 



Year 


Year 


NOTE: Prior to 1 995, data on attainment of a master's or higher degree were not available. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), "Annual Social and Economic Supplement," selected years, 
1990-2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 20i4, table 104.20. 


Female attainment rates have been generally higher than 
male attainment rates at each education level since 2000. 
More specifically, in 1990 the percentages of male and 
female 25- to 29-year-olds who had completed a bachelor’s 
degree or higher were not measurably different, but in 
2014 the percentage of females (37 percent) attaining this 
level of education was 6 points higher than the percentage 


of males doing so (31 percent). Similarly, in 1995 the 
percentages of males and females who had completed a 
master’s degree or higher were not measurably different, 
but in 2014 some 9 percent of females had completed 
a master’s degree or higher, compared with 6 percent 
of males. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


32 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Attainment 


Figure 2. Percentage of 25- to 29-yeor-olds who completed at least a high school diploma or its equivalent, 
by roce/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990-2014 


Percent 



Year 


NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Prior to 2004, separate data on American Indians/Aiasko Natives and persons of T\a/o or more 
races were not available. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), 'Annual Social and Economic Supplement," selected years, 
1990-2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 104.20. 


Between 1990 and 2014, the percentage of 25- to 
29-year-olds who completed at least a high school 
diploma or its equivalent increased for Whites (from 90 to 
96 percent), Blacks (from 82 to 92 percent), Hispanics 
(from 58 to 75 percent), and Asians/Pacilic Islanders 
(from 92 to 97 percent). For Hispanics, most of the 
change over this period (i.e., 12 percentage points out 
of the total 17 percentage point change) occurred in the 


last 10 years. Between 1990 and 2014, the percentage of 
Whites who had attained at least a high school diploma 
or its equivalent remained higher than that of Blacks 
and Hispanics. However, the size of the White-Black 
attainment gap at this education level narrowed from 8 to 
4 percentage points, and the size of the White-Hispanic 
gap narrowed from 32 to 21 percentage points. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Population Characteristics 33 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Attainment 


Figure 3. Percentage of 25- to 29-yeor-olds who completed o bachelor's or higher degree, by roce/ethnicity: Selected 
years, 1990-2014 


Percent 



Year 

’ Interpret data for 2004, 2006, 2007, and 201 4 with caution. The coefficients of variation (CVs) for these estimates are between 30 and 50 percent. 

NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Prior to 2004, separate data on American Indians/Alaska Natives and persons of Two or more 
races were not available. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), 'Annual Social and Economic Supplement," selected years, 
1990-2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 104.20. 


From 1990 to 2014, the percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds 
who had attained a bachelor’s or higher degree increased 
for Whites (from 26 to 41 percent), Blacks (from 13 to 
22 percent), Hispanics (from 8 to 15 percent), and 
Asians/Pacific Islanders (from 43 to 61 percent). Most of 
the increase for Hispanics over this period (4 percentage 
points) occurred in the most recent decade. Over the 
period from 1990 to 2014, the gap between Whites and 
Blacks in the rate of attaining a bachelor’s or higher degree 
widened from 13 to 18 percentage points, and the gap 
between Whites and Hispanics in attaining this education 
level widened from 18 to 26 percentage points. 


From 1995 to 2014, the percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds 
who had attained a master’s or higher degree increased for 
Whites (from 5 to 9 percent). Blacks (from 2 to 4 percent), 
Hispanics (from 2 to 3 percent), and Asians/Pacific 
Islanders (from 11 to 18 percent). The gap between Whites 
and Hispanics in the attainment of a master’s or higher 
degree was wider in 2014 (6 percentage points) than in 
1995 (4 percentage points); however, the gap between 
Whites and Blacks in 2014 was not measurably different 
from that in 1995. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table Glossary: Educational attainment (Current Population Survey) 

104.20 

Related indicators: International Educational Attainment 
(indicator 2), Annual Earnings of Young Adults (indicator 3), 

Trends in Employment Rates by Educational Attainment 
[The Condition of Education 2013 Spotlight] 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


34 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Attainment 


Indicator 2 

International Educational Attainment 

The percentage of 25- to 64-year-olds who had earned a bachelor's or higher 
degree was higher In 2012 than In 2001 In the United States (33 vs. 28 percent) and 
across OECD countries (24 vs. 15 percent). 


In 2012, some 26 out of 32 countries belonging to 
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD)' reported that 70 percent or 
more of their adult populations (ages 25 to 64) had 
completed high school.^ The OECD is an organization 
of 34 countries whose purpose is to promote trade 
and economic growth. Among OECD countries, the 
percentages of high school completers ranged from 
under 40 percent in Turkey, Mexico, and Portugal 


to over 90 percent in the Slovak Republic and the 
Czech Republic. Additionally, 21 out of 34 OECD 
countries reported that 20 percent or more of their adult 
populations had completed a bachelor’s or higher degree. 
Among OECD countries, the percentages of bachelor’s 
degree completers ranged from 15 percent or less in Chile, 
Austria, and Slovenia to more than 30 percent in the 
United Kingdom, Iceland, the Netherlands, Israel, the 
United States, and Norway. 


Table 1 . Percentage of the population that had completed high schooi in Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Deveiopment (OECD) countries, by age group: 2012 



25 to 34 

55 to 64 



OECD country 

years old 

years old 

Ditference 

OECD average 

83 

65 

17 

A 

Korea, Republic of 

98 

48 

51 

A 

Portugal 

58 

20 

38 

A 

Greece 

83 

50 

33 

A 

Ireland 

86 

55 

31 

A 

Italy 

72 

42 

29 

A 

Spain 

64 

35 

29 

A 

Belgium 

82 

56 

26 

A 

Turkey 

46 

21 

25 

A 

France 

83 

59 

24 

A 

Australia 

87 

64 

23 

A 

Netherlands 

83 

61 

22 

A 

Mexico 

46 

25 

21 

A 

Slovenia 

94 

74 

20 

A 

Luxembourg 

86 

69 

18 

A 

New Zealand 

80 

64 

16 

A 

Finland 

90 

74 

16 

A 

United Kingdom 

85 

69 

16 

A 

Austria 

89 

74 

15 

A 

Iceland 

75 

61 

14 

A 

Poland 

94 

81 

13 

A 

Israel 

90 

77 

13 

A 

Hungary 

88 

75 

13 

A 

Sweden 

91 

79 

11 

A 

Denmark 

82 

71 

11 

A 

Slovak Republic 

94 

86 

8 

A 

Canada 

92 

84 

8 

A 

Switzerland 

89 

82 

8 

A 

Czech Republic 

94 

87 

7 

A 

Germany 

87 

84 

2 

A 

Norway 

82 

82 

0 

o 

United States 

89 

90 

-1 

o 

Estonia 

86 

88 

-2 

o 

Chile 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Japan 

— 

— 

— 

— 

A The percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who had completed high school is higher than the percentage of 55- to 64-year-oids who had compieted high schooi. 
o The peroentages of 25- to 34-year-oids and 55- to 64-year-o!ds who had compieted high schooi are not significantly different. 

— Not avaiiable. 

NOTE: Educationai attainment data in this tabie refer to degrees classified by the OECD as Internationai Standard Classification of Eduoation (ISCED) level 3 
for high schooi. The OECD average refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting OECD countries, to which each country reporting data contributes 
equaiiy. Caicuiations based on unrounded data. 

SOURCE: Organization for Eoonomic Cooperation and Deveiopment (OECD), Education at a Glance, 201 4. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 


table 603.10. 

For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


36 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Attainment 


In most OECD countries, higher percentages of the 
youngest adult age group (ages 25 to 34) than of the 
oldest adult age group (ages 55 to 64) had completed 
high school in 2012. Across these countries, the average 
percentage of those completing high school was higher for 
25- to 34-year-olds (83 percent) than for 55- to 64-year- 
olds (65 percent). In only three countries, Norway, the 
United States, and Estonia, did the youngest and oldest 


age groups have high school completion percentages that 
were not measurably different. In each of these countries, 
the high school completion rates for both of these age 
groups were above 80 percent. Six other countries also 
had 80 percent or more of 55- to 64-year-olds who had 
completed high school: Poland, Switzerland, Canada, 
Germany, the Slovak Republic, and the Czech Republic. 


Table 2. Percentage of the population with a bachelor's or higher degree in Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development (OECD) countries, by age group: 2012 


OECD country 

25 to 34 
years old 

55 to 64 
years old 

Ditference 

OECD average 

30 

17 

13 A 

Korea. Republic of 

40 

11 

29 A 

Poland 

41 

13 

28 A 

Finland 

39 

15 

24 A 

Luxembourg 

36 

17 

19 A 

Ireland 

33 

15 

19 A 

United Kingdom 

40 

22 

18 A 

Norway 

44 

27 

18 A 

Portugal 

28 

11 

17 A 

Japan 

35 

19 

16 A 

Iceland 

36 

20 

15 A 

Czech Republic 

28 

13 

15 A 

Sweden 

34 

19 

15 A 

Netherlands 

40 

25 

15 A 

New Zealand 

33 

18 

15 A 

France 

27 

13 

14 A 

Australia 

37 

23 

14 A 

Hungary 

29 

15 

14 A 

Slovenia 

22 

8 

14 A 

Slovak Republic 

26 

12 

13 A 

Belgium 

25 

12 

13 A 

Switzerland 

32 

19 

12 A 

Spain 

27 

15 

12 A 

Denmark 

35 

24 

11 A 

Mexico 

23 

12 

11 A 

Italy 

22 

11 

11 A 

Turkey 

21 

10 

11 A 

Austria 

18 

8 

10 A 

Canada 

32 

22 

9 A 

Chile 

16 

9 

7 A 

Greece 

21 

15 

6 A 

Germany 

19 

15 

4 A 

Estonia 

27 

23 

3 O 

United States 

34 

31 

3 A 

Israel 

33 

30 

2 A 


A The percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with a bachelor's or higher degree is higher than the percentage of 55- to 64-year-olds with a bachelor's or 
higher degree. 

o The percentages of 25- fo 34-year-olds and 55- fo 64-year-olds wifh a bachelor's or higher degree are not significantly different. 

NOTE: Educational attainment data in this table refer to degrees classified by the OECD as International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) level 
5A or 6 for bachelor's or higher degrees. The OECD average refers to the mean of the data values for all reporfing OECD counfries.to which each counfry 
reporfing dafa confributes equally. Calculafions based on unrounded dafa. 

SOURCE: Organizafion for Economio Cooperation and Development (OECD). Education at a Glance. 2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 603.20. 

The same general pattern of higher percentages of the 
youngest age groups attaining higher levels of education 
also applied to bachelor’s or higher degrees in 2012. 

In all OECD countries, except Estonia, a significantly 
higher percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds than of 55- to 
64-year-olds had a bachelor’s or higher degree in 2012. On 
average, 30 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds had a bachelor’s 


or higher degree in 2012, compared with 17 percent of 
55-to 64-year-olds. In the United States, 34 percent of 
25-to 34-year-olds and 31 percent of 55- to 64-year-olds 
had a bachelor’s or higher degree. The United States and 
Israel had the highest percentages of 55- to 64-year-olds 
with a bachelor’s or higher degree in 2012. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Population Characteristics 37 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Attainment 


Table 3. Percentage of the population 25 to 64 years old that hod completed high school in Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries: 2001 and 2012 


OECD country 

2001 

2012 

Difference 

OECD average 

64 

76 

12 i 

Poland 

46 

90 

44 A 

Luxembourg 

53 

78 

26 A 

Portugal 

20 

38 

18 A 

Australia 

59 

76 

18 A 

Greece 

51 

68 

17 A 

Ireland 

58 

75 

17 A 

Mexico 

22 

37 

16 A 

United Kingdom' 

63 

78 

15 A 

Spain 

40 

55 

15 A 

Korea, Republic of 

68 

82 

14 A 

Iceland 

57 

71 

14 A 

Italy 

43 

57 

14 A 

Belgium^ 

59 

72 

13 A 

Hungary 

70 

82 

12 A 

Finland 

74 

85 

11 A 

Turkey 

24 

34 

10 A 

France' 

64 

73 

9 A 

Netherlands''^ 

65 

73 

8 A 

Austria^ 

76 

83 

7 A 

Canada 

82 

89 

7 A 

Sweden 

81 

88 

7 A 

Slovak Republic 

85 

92 

7 A 

Czech Republic 

86 

92 

6 A 

Germany 

83 

86 

4 A 

United States 

88 

89 

2 A 

Switzerland 

87 

86 

-1 T 

New Zealand 

76 

74 

-2 ▼ 

Denmark 

80 

78 

-2 T 

Norway^ 

85 

82 

-3 T 

Japan 

83 

— 

— 

Estonia 

— 

90 

— 

Slovenia 

— 

85 

— 

Israel 

— 

85 

— 

Chile 

— 

— 

— 


A The 201 2 percentage is higher than the 2001 percentage. 

T The 201 2 percentage is iower than the 2001 percentage. 

— Not available. 

’ Data in 2001 coiumn include some short secondary (ISCED 3C) programs. 

^ Data from 2000 reported for 2001 . 

NOTE: Educational attainment data in this table refer to degrees classified as International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) level 3. ISCED level 3 
corresponds to high school oompletion in the United States. ISCED 3C short programs do not correspond to high school completion; these short programs 
are excluded from this table except v/here noted. The OECD average refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting OECD countries, to which each 
country reporting data contributes equally. Calculations based on unrounded data. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Education at a Glance. 2002 and 201 4. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 603.10. 


The percentage of 25- to 64-year-olds who had completed 
a high school education was higher in 2012 than in 
2001 in each OECD country, with the exceptions of 
Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark, and Norway, 
where high school completion rates in 2012 were 
between 1 and 3 percentage points lower than they were 
in 2001.^ The OECD average percentage of the adult 
population completing a high school education increased 
by 12 percentage points, from 64 percent in 2001 to 


76 percent in 2012. The percentage of adults in the United 
States who had completed high school increased from 
88 to 89 percent during this period. 

The OECD percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with a high 
school education was 9 percentage points higher in 2012 
than in 2001, while the percentage of U.S. young adults 
was 1 percentage point higher. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


38 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Attainment 


Table 4. Percentage of the population 25 to 64 years old with o bachelor's or higher degree in Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries: 2001 and 2012 


OECD country 

2001 

2012 

Difference 

OECD average 

15 

24 

8 A 

Luxembourg 

11 

26 

15 A 

United Kingdom 

18 

31 

13 A 

Poiand' 

12 

25 

13 A 

ioeiand 

19 

31 

12 A 

Portugal^ 

7 

19 

12 A 

Finiand 

15 

26 

11 A 

New Zealand 

14 

25 

11 A 

Korea, Republic of 

17 

28 

11 A 

Ireland 

14 

25 

11 A 

Netherlands 

21 

32 

11 A 

Australia 

19 

30 

11 A 

Switzerland 

16 

26 

10 A 

Sweden 

17 

27 

10 A 

Norway 

28 

36 

9 A 

Czech Republic' 

11 

19 

8 A 

Denmark 

22 

29 

8 A 

Canada 

20 

28 

7 A 

Slovak Republic 

10 

18 

7 A 

Hungary^ 

14 

21 

7 A 

Japan 

19 

26 

7 A 

France 

12 

19 

7 A 

Turkey' 

9 

15 

6 A 

Austria 

7 

13 

6 A 

Spain 

17 

23 

6 A 

Belgium 

13 

18 

6 A 

Greece 

12 

18 

5 A 

Italy^ 

10 

15 

5 A 

United States 

28 

33 

4 A 

Mexico 

13 

17 

4 A 

Germany 

13 

17 

4 A 

Chile" 

9 

12 

— 

Israel 

— 

33 

— 

Estonia 

— 

25 

— 

Slovenia 

— 

15 

— 


A The 201 2 percentage is higher than the 2001 percentage. 

— Not available. 

^ Data include vocational degrees. 

2 Data for 201 2 include vocational degrees. 

^ Data for 2001 include vocational degrees. 

^ Data from 2000 reported for 2001 . Data from 201 1 reported for 201 2. 

NOTE: Educational attainment data in this table refer to degrees classified by the OECD as International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) level 
5A or 6 for bachelor's or higher degrees. The OECD average refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting OECD countries, to which each country 
reporting data contributes equally. Calculations based on unrounded data. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Education at a Glance, 2002 and 201 4. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 603.30. 


All countries with data reported that the percentages 
of 25- to 64-year-olds who had completed a bachelor’s 
or higher degree were higher in 2012 than they were 
in 2001. The OECD average percentage of the adult 
population with a bachelor’s or higher degree increased by 
8 percentage points between 2001 and 2012, from 15 to 
24 percent. During the same period, the percentage of 
U.S. adults with a bachelor’s or higher degree increased 
from 28 to 33 percent. 

For 25- to 34-year-olds, the OECD average percentage 
with a bachelor’s or higher degree rose from 18 percent in 
2001 to 30 percent in 2012, an increase of 12 percentage 


points. The comparable percentage for young adults 
in the United States increased by 4 percentage points, 
from 30 to 34 percent. As a result of the relatively larger 
increases in bachelor’s or higher degree attainment among 
young adult populations in several other OECD countries, 
the gap in attainment at this level of education between 
the U.S. and the OECD average percentages decreased 
between 2001 and 2012. In 2001, the rate of attainment 
of a bachelor’s or higher degree among 25- to 34-year-olds 
in the United States was 12 percentage points higher than 
the OECD average; by 2012, this difference had decreased 
to 4 percentage points. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Population Characteristics 39 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Attainment 


Endnotes: 

* In 2012, Chile and Japan did not report data on high 
school completion rates. 

^ Attainment data in this indicator refer to comparable 
levels of degrees, as classified by the International Standard 
Classification of Education (ISCED). 

^ In 2001, Estonia, Slovenia, Israel, and Chile did not 
report data on high school completion rates. In 2012, 
Chile and Japan did not report data on high school 
completion rates. 

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
603.10,603.20, and 603.30 

Related indicators: Educational Attainment (indicator 1), 
Education Expenditures by Country (indicator 22), 
International Assessments (indicator 26), Trends in 
Employment Rates by Educational Attainment {The Condition 
of Education 2013 Spotlight\ 

Glossary: Bachelor’s degree. Educational attainment, Eligh 
school completer. International Standard Classification of 
Education (ISCED), Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development (OECD) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


40 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Economic Outcomes 


Indicator 3 

Annual Earnings of Young Adults 

In 2013, young adults with a bachelor's degree earned more than twice as much 
os those without a high schooi credentiai ($48,500 vs. $23,900) and 62 percent 
more than young aduit high schooi compieters ($48,500 vs. $30,000). 


This indicator examines the annual earnings of young 
adults ages 25-34. Many people in this age group have 
recently completed their education and may be entering 
the workforce or transitioning from part-time to full-time 
work. In 2013, some 65 percent of young adults ages 
25-34 who were in the labor force worked full time, year 
round (i.e., worked 35 or more hours per week for 50 or 


more weeks per year). The percentage of young adults 
working full time, year round was generally higher for 
those with higher levels of educational attainment. For 
example, 72 percent of young adults with a bachelor’s 
degree worked full time, year round in 2013, compared 
with 62 percent of young adult high school completers 
(those with a high school diploma or its equivalent). 


Figure 1 . Percentage of the labor force ages 25-34 who worked full time, year round, by educational attainment; 
Selected years, 2000-2013 


Percent 



Year 

' Includes equivalency credentials, such as the General Educational Development (GED) credentiai. 

NOTE: Full-time year-round workers are those who worked 35 or more hours per week tor 50 or more weeks per year. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department ot Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), ‘Annual Sooial and Economio Supplement," selected years 
2001-2014: and previously unpublished tabulations. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 502.30. 


Changes over time in the percentage of young adults 
in the labor force who worked full time, year round 
varied by level of educational attainment. From 2000 
to 2013, the percentage of young adults without a high 
school credential (i.e., without a high school diploma 
or its equivalent) who worked full time, year round 
decreased from 59 to 53 percent, and the corresponding 
percentage of high school completers decreased from 
67 to 62 percent. However, during the same period the 
percentages of young adults with an associate’s degree. 


bachelor’s degree, or master’s degree or higher who 
worked full time, year round did not change measurably. 
Between the most recent years of 2012 and 2013, the 
percentages of young adults working full time, year round 
did not change measurably for most levels of educational 
attainment. The exception was the percentage of young 
adults without a high school credential who worked full 
time, year round, which was higher in 2013 (53 percent) 
than in 2012 (49 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


42 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Economic Outcomes 


Figure 2. Median annuai earnings of fuil-time year-round workers ages 25-34, by educational attainment: 2013 
Dollars 

$ 80,000 I - — 


70,000 - 


$ 59,600 


60,000 — 

50,000 

$ 40,000 




Total' Less than high High schooi Associate's Total^ 

school completion completion^ degree 


Bachelor's Master's or 

degree higher degree 


Bachelor's or higher degree 

Educational attainment 

' Represents median annual earnings ot all full-time year-round workers ages 25-34. 

^ Inoludes equivalency credentials, such as the General Educational Development (GED) credential. 

^ Represents median annual earnings ot full-time year-round workers ages 25-34 with a bachelor's or higher degree. 

NOTE: Full-time year-round workers are those who worked 35 or more hours per week for 50 or more weeks per year. 

SOURCE: U.S. Departmenf of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), "Annual Social and Economic Supplement," 2014. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2014, table 502.30. 


For young adults ages 25-34 who worked full time, year 
round, higher educational attainment was associated with 
higher median earnings; this pattern was consistent for 
2000, 2003, and 2005 through 2013. For example, in 
2013 median earnings for young adults with a bachelor’s 
degree were $48,500, compared with $23,900 for those 
without a high school credential, $30,000 for those with 
a high school credential, and $37,500 for those with an 
associate’s degree. In other words, young adults with a 
bachelor’s degree earned more than twice as much as 


those without a high school credential (103 percent more), 
62 percent more than young adult high school completers, 
and 29 percent more than associate’s degree holders. 
Additionally, in 2013 median earnings for young adults 
with a master’s or higher degree were $59,600, some 
23 percent more than median earnings for young adults 
with a bachelor’s degree. This pattern of higher earnings 
associated with higher levels of educational attainment 
also held for both males and females and across racial/ 
ethnic groups (White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Population Characteristics 43 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Economic Outcomes 


Figure 3. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers ages 25-34, by educational attainment: 2000-2013 



2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 

Year 

’ Includes equivalency credentials, such as the General Educational Development (GED) credential. 

NOTE: Earnings are presented in constant dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), to eliminate inflationary factors and to allow for direct 
comparison aoross years. Full-time year-round workers are those who worked 35 or more hours per week for 50 or more weeks per year. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), "Annual Social and Economic Supplement," 2001-2014; and 
previously unpublished tabulations. See Digest of Eduoafion Statistics 2014, table 502.30. 


Median earnings (in constant 2013 dollars) of young 
adults declined from 2000 to 2013 for high school 
completers, those with a bachelor’s degree, and those 
with a master’s or higher degree. During this period, the 
median earnings of young adult high school completers 
declined from $33,800 to $30,000 (an 11 percent 
decrease), the median earnings of young adults with a 
bachelor’s degree declined from $54,000 to $48,500 
(a 10 percent decrease), and the median earnings of 
young adults with a master’s or higher degree declined 
from $64,800 to $59,600 (an 8 percent decrease). In 
general, median earnings for young adults did not change 
measurably between 2012 and 2013. 

Gaps in median earnings (in constant 2013 dollars) 
among those with varying levels of educational attainment 


exhibited different patterns of change over time. The 
difference in median earnings between those with 
a bachelor’s degree and those without a high school 
credential narrowed between 2000 and 2013. In 2000, 
median earnings for young adults with a bachelor’s degree 
were $29,500 greater than median earnings for those 
without a high school credential; in 2013, this earnings 
differential was $24,600. In addition, median earnings for 
high school completers were $9,300 greater than median 
earnings for those without a high school credential in 
2000, compared with the corresponding difference of 
$6,100 in 2013. Differences in median earnings between 
those with a bachelor’s degree and high school completers, 
and between those with a bachelor’s degree and those with 
a master’s or higher degree did not change measurably 
during the same period. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


44 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Economic Outcomes 

Figure 4. Median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers ages 25-34, by educational attainment and sex: 2013 
Dollars 

$ 80,000 



Total' Less than high High school Associate's Total^ Bachelor's Master's or 

school completion completion^ degree degree higher degree 


Bachelor's or higher degree 

Educational attainment 

^ Male □ Female 

’ Represents median annual earnings of all full-time year-round workers ages 25-34. 

2 Includes equivalency credentials, such as the General Educational Development (GED) credential. 

^ Represents median annual earnings of full-time year-round workers ages 25-34 with a bachelor's or higher degree. 

NOTE: Full-time year-round workers are those who worked 35 or more hours per week for 50 or more weeks per year. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), "Annual Social and Economic Supplement," 201 4. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2014, table 502.30. 


In 2013, median earnings for young adult males were 
higher than median earnings for young adult females at 
every level of educational attainment. For example, in 
2013 young adult males with a bachelor’s degree earned 
$51,900, while their female counterparts earned $44,600. 
In the same year, median earnings for White young 
adults exceeded the corresponding medians for Black and 
Hispanic young adults among those who did not complete 
high school, high school completers, and those with a 
bachelor’s or higher degree. For instance, median earnings 


in 2013 for young adults with a bachelor’s or higher degree 
were $50,000 for Whites, $45,800 for Hispanics, and 
$44,600 for Blacks. Among those with a bachelor’s degree 
and those with a master’s or higher degree, Asian young 
adults had higher median earnings than their peers in 
other racial/ethnic groups. For example, median earnings 
in 2013 for young adults with at least a master’s degree 
were $74,600 for Asians, $58,800 for Whites, $54,500 for 
Blacks, and $49,500 for Hispanics. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 502.30 

Related indicators: Employment Rates and Unemployment 
Rates by Educational Attainment (indicator 4) 


Glossary: Bachelor’s degree. Constant dollars, Consumer Price 
Index (CPI), Educational attainment (Current Population 
Survey), High school completer, Master’s degree 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Population Characteristics 45 


Indicator 4 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Economic Outcomes 


Employment Rates and Unemployment Rates by 
Educational Attainment 


The percentage of the adult population who were employed was higher in 2014 
than at the end of the recent recession in 2010, but lower than before the recession 
began in 2008. 


This indicator examines recent trends in two measures of 
labor market conditions — the employment to population 
ratio (also referred to as the employment rate) and the 
unemployment rate — by age group and educational 
attainment level. The employment to population ratio and 
the unemployment rate are distinct, although related. For 
each age group, the employment to population ratio is the 
number of persons in that age group who are employed as 
a percentage of the civilian population in that age group. 
The unemployment rate is the percentage of persons in the 


civilian labor force who are not working and who made 
specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 
prior 4 weeks. (Note that the civilian labor force consists 
of all civilians who are employed or seeking employment.) 
Trends in the unemployment rate reflect net changes in 
the relative number of people who are looking for work, 
while the employment rate reflects whether the economy is 
generating jobs relative to population growth in a specific 
age group. 


Figure 1 . Employment to population ratios, by age group and educational attainment: Selected years, 2000 through 2014 



— ■ — Total 9 Less than high school completion « Some coliege, no bocheior's degree 

— A- - High schooi completion — ■ — Bachelor's or higher degree 

NOTE: For each age group, the empioyment to popuiation ratio, or empioyment rate, is the number ot persons in that age group who are empioyed as a 
percentage of the civilian population in that age group. Data for 20- to 24-year-olds exclude persons enrolled in school. High school completion includes 
equivalency credentials, such as the General Educational Development (GED) credential. The data for the "Some college, no bachelor's degree" category 
includes persons with no bachelor's degree as well as those with an associate's degree. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employmenf and Unemploymenf Sfafisfics, unpublished annual average dafa from the 
Current Population Survey (CPS), selected years, 2000 through 2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 501 .50. 


During the period from 2008 to 2010, the U.S. 
economy experienced a recession.* For young adults 
ages 20 to 24, the employment rate was lower in 
2008, when the recession began, than it was in 2000 
(73.4 vs. 77.4 percent). The employment rate was even 


lower in 2010 (65.5 percent), after the end of the recession, 
than it was in 2008. While the employment rate for young 
adults was higher in 2014 (69.4 percent) than in 2010, the 
2014 rate was still lower than the rate in 2008 or 2000. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


46 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Economic Outcomes 


The trend over time of the employment rate for adults 
ages 25 to 64 was similar to that for young adults ages 
20 to 24. The rate for 25- to 64-year-olds was lower 
in 2010 (71.5 percent) than it was in either 2008 or 
2000 (75.5 and 77.7 percent, respectively). The rate 
in 2014 (72.3 percent) was higher than it was in 2010 


but lower than it was in 2008 or 2000. In addition, 
the employment rates in both 2014 and 2010, at each 
level of educational attainment for both age groups, 
were generally lower than the rate in 2008, when the 
recession began. 


Figure 2. Employment to population ratios, by age group and educational attainment: 2014 


Percent employed 



20 to 24 years old 


Age group 


25 to 64 years old 


^ Total 


■ Less than high i — i High schooi ■ — ■ Some oollege. i — i Bachelor's or 

sohooi completion I — I completion I — I no bachelor's degree ' — ' higher degree 


NOTE: For each age group, the employment to population ratio, or employment rate, is the number of persons in that age group who are employed as a 
percentage of the civilian population in that age group. Data for 20- to 24-year-olds exclude persons enrolled in school. The data for the "Some college, 
no bachelor's degree" category includes persons with no bachelor's degree as well as those with an associate's degree. High school completion includes 
equivalency credentials, such as the General Educational Development (GED) credential. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Stafistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, unpublished annual average data from fhe 
Current Population Survey (CPS), 2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 501 .50. 


Generally, the employment rate was higher for those with 
higher levels of educational attainment. For example, in 
2014, the employment rate for young adults ages 20 to 
24 with a bachelor’s degree or higher was higher than 
the rate for young adults with some college (88.1 vs. 

75.0 percent). The employment rate for young adults with 
some college was higher than the rate for those who had 
completed high school (63.7 percent), which was, in turn, 
higher than the employment rate for those young adults 
who had not finished high school (46.6 percent). This 
pattern of employment rates being higher for those with 
higher levels of educational attainment was also seen for 
those 25 to 64 years old and for men as well as women in 
both age groups. 

In addition to the employment rate being higher for those 
with higher levels of educational attainment, employment 
rates were generally higher for males than females at 


each level of educational attainment in 2014. The overall 
employment rate for young males 20 to 24 years old was 
higher than the rate for young females 20 to 24 years old 
(72.4 vs. 66.3 percent). It was also higher for young males 
with some college than for young females with the same 
level of educational attainment (78.6 vs. 71.6 percent). 
Similarly, the employment rate for young males who 
had completed high school was greater than the rate 
for young females who had completed high school 
(66.6 vs. 60.2 percent) and it was higher for young males 
who had not completed high school than for their female 
peers (58.3 vs. 30.5 percent). As with the younger cohort, 
the overall employment rate for males 25 to 64 years old 
was higher than the rate for females 25 to 64 years old 
(78.2 vs. 66.6 percent). This pattern held for older adults 
at each level of educational attainment, including those 
with a bachelor’s degree or higher, which was not the case 
for young adults. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Population Characteristics 47 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Economic Outcomes 


Figure 3. Unemployment rates, by age group and educational attainment: Seiected years, 2000 through 2014 



B Total # Less than high school completion » Some college, no bachelor's degree 

— A- - High school completion — Bachelor's or higher degree 

NOTE: The unemployment rate is the percentage of persons in the civilian labor force who are not working and who made specific efforts to find employment 
sometime during the prior 4 weeks. The civilian labor force consists of all civilians who are employed or seeking employment. Data for 20- to 24-year-olds 
exclude persons enrolled in school. The data for the "Some college, no bachelor's degree" category includes persons with no bachelor's degree as well as 
those with an associate's degree. High schoci completion includes equivalency credentials, such as the General Educational Development (GED) credential. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, unpublished annual average data from the 
Current Population Survey (CPS), selected years, 2000 through 2014. See Digest of Educotion Statistics 2074, table 501 .80. 


For young adults ages 20 to 24, the unemployment rate 
in 2010 (18.8 percent) was higher than it was in either 
2008 or 2000 (10.7 and 9.2 percent, respectively). The 
unemployment rate for young adults was lower in 2014 
(14.9 percent) than it was in 2010, when the recession 
ended, but higher than in either 2008 or 2000. 

The trend over time of the unemployment rate for 
adults ages 25 to 64 was similar to that for young 


adults ages 20 to 24. The unemployment rate was 
higher in 2010 (9.1 percent) than it was in either 2008 
or 2000 (4.4 and 3.3 percent, respectively). The rate in 
2014 (5.8 percent) was lower than in 2010 but higher 
than it had been in either 2008 or 2000. Generally, at 
each level of educational attainment for both age groups, 
the unemployment rate in 2014 was lower than the 
unemployment rate in 2010, but higher than the rates in 
2008 and 2000. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


48 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Economic Outcomes 


Figure 4. Unemployment rates, by age group and educational attainment: 2014 



20 to 24 years old 


Age group 


25 to 64 years old 


^ Total 


■ Less than high i — i High school i — i Some college, i — i Bachelor's or 

school completion I — ' completion I — ' no bachelor's degree * — * higher degree 


NOTE: The unemployment rate Is the percentage of persons in the civilian labor force who are not working and who made specific efforts to find employment 
sometime during the prior 4 weeks. The civilian labor force consists of all civilians who are employed or seeking employment. Data for 20- to 24-year-olds 
exclude persons enrolled in school. The data for the "Some college, no bachelor's degree" category includes persons with no bachelor's degree as well as 
those with an associate's degree. High school completion includes equivalency credentials, such as the General Educational Development (GED) credential. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, unpublished annual average data from the 
Current Population Survey (CPS), 201 4. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 501 .80. 


Generally, the unemployment rate was lower for those 
with higher levels of educational attainment. For example, 
in 2014, the unemployment rate for young adults 
20 to 24 years old with a bachelor’s degree or higher was 
lower than the rate for young adults with some college 
(6.7 vs. 12.2 percent). The unemployment rate for young 
adults with some college was lower than the rate for those 
who had completed high school (18.9 percent), which 
was lower than the unemployment rate of 25.3 percent 
for those who had not finished high school. This pattern 
of unemployment rates being lower for those with higher 
levels of educational attainment was also seen for those 
25 to 64 years old and, generally, for men and for women 
within both age groups. 


In 2014, the overall unemployment rate for young males 
20 to 24 years old was higher than the overall rate for 
young females 20 to 24 years old (17.0 vs. 12.4 percent). 
The unemployment rate for young males who had 
graduated from high school was greater than the rate 
for young females with the same level of educational 
attainment (21.1 vs. 15.8 percent). The unemployment 
rate for males ages 25 to 64 who had not graduated 
from high school was lower than the rate for females 
ages 25 to 64 who had not graduated from high school 
(9.4 vs. 12.7 percent). However, there were no measurable 
differences between older males and females at the other 
levels of educational attainment. 


Endnotes: 

' The National Bureau of Economic Research determined 
that the recession began in December 2007 and continued 
through June 2009. See http://www.nber.org/cycles.html . 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Bachelor’s degree. Educational attainment 

501.50, 501.60, 501.70, 501.80, 501.85, and 501.90 (Current Population Survey), High school completer 

Related indicators: Annual Earnings of Young Adults 
(indicator 3), Trends in Employment Rates by Educational 
Attainment {The Condition of Education 2013 Spotlight] 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Population Characteristics 49 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Demographics 


Indicator 5 

Children Living in Poverty 

In 2013, approximately 21 percent of school-age children were in famines iiving in 
poverty. The percentage of schooi-age chiidren iiving in poverty ranged across the 
United States from 9 percent in New Hampshire to 33 percent in Mississippi. 


In 2013, approximately 10.9 million school-age children 
5 to 17 years old were in families living in poverty.' 
Research suggests that living in poverty during early 
childhood is associated with lower than average academic 
performance that begins in kindergarten^ and extends 
through elementary and high school. Living in poverty 
during early childhood is associated with lower than 
average rates of school completion.^ 


The percentage of school-age children living in poverty 
in 2013 (21 percent) was higher than it was two decades 
earlier in 1990 (17 percent), even though the poverty rate 
for school-age children was lower in 2000 (15 percent) 
than in 1990. Between the two most recent survey years, 
2012 and 2013, the poverty rate for school-age children 
did not change measurably. 



United States Northeast South Midwest West 


Region 

H 1990 Q 2000 Q 2013 

NOTE: The measure of child poverty includes all children who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child who is the spouse 
of the householder). The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) the housing unit. 1 990 data are based on 1 989 
incomes and family sizes collected in the 1 990 census, and 2000 data are based on 1 999 incomes and family sizes collected in the 2000 census. Data for 
both years may differ from Current Population Survey data. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce. Census Bureau, 1990 Summary Tape File 3 (STF 3), "Median Household Income in 1989" and "Poverty Status in 
1 989 by Family Type and Age"; Decennial Census. 1 990. Minority Economic Profiles, unpublished data; Decennial Census. 2000. Summary Social, Economic, 
and Housing Characteristics: Census 2000 Summary File 4 (SF 4). "Poverty Status in 1999 of Related Children Under 18 Years by Family Type and Age"; and 
American Community Survey (ACS), 201 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 102.40. 


All regions of the United States (Northeast, South, 
Midwest, and West) had higher poverty rates for 
school-age children in 2013 than in 1990 or 2000. In 
2013, the South had the highest rate of poverty for 
school-age children (23 percent), followed by the West 
(21 percent), the Midwest (19 percent), and the Northeast 


(18 percent). From 1990 to 2000, both the South and the 
Midwest experienced a decrease in the poverty rate for 
school-age children (from 20 to 18 percent and from 15 to 
12 percent, respectively), while the Northeast and the 
West did not show measurable changes. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


50 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Demographics 


Figure 2. Percentage of 5- to 17-year-olds in families iiving in poverty, by state: 2013 



NOTE: The measure of child poverty includes all children who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child who is the spouse 
of the householder). The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) the housing unit. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS). 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 1 02.40. 


While the national average poverty rate for school-age 
children was 21 percent in 2013, the poverty rates among 
the states ranged from 9 percent in New Hampshire to 
33 percent in Mississippi. Some 23 states had poverty rates 
for school-age children that were lower than the national 
average, 16 states plus the District of Columbia had rates 
that were higher than the national average, and 1 1 states 
had rates that were not measurably different from the 
national average. Of the 17 jurisdictions (16 states and the 
District of Columbia) that had poverty rates higher than 
the national average, 13 were located in the South. 


In 2013, some 37 states plus the District of Columbia had 
higher poverty rates for school-age children than in 1990, 
while 11 states had poverty rates for school-age children 
that were not measurably different from those in 1990. In 
two states (Louisiana and North Dakota), the percentage 
of school-age children living in poverty was lower in 
2013 than in 1990. From 1990 to 2000, the poverty rate 
for school-age children decreased in 38 states, while it 
increased in 6 states plus the District of Columbia. In 
2013, the poverty rate for school-age children was higher 
in 43 states than it was in 2000, and it did not change 
measurably in the remaining 7 states and the District of 
Columbia during this period. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Population Characteristics 51 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Demographics 


Figure 3. Percentage of children under age 18 iiving in poverty, by race/ethnicity: 2008 and 2013 


Percent 

100 


80 — 


60 



White 


Black Hispanic 


Asian Pacific Islander American Indian/ Two or 

_ ...... Alaska Native more races 

Race/ethnicity 


I 2008 □ 2013 


NOTE: The measure of child poverty includes all children who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child who is the spouse 
of the householder). The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) the housing unit. Race categories exclude persons 
of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2008 and 2013. See Digest of Education Statistios 2014, 
table 102.60. 


In 2013, approximately 15.6 million, or 22 percent, of 
all children under the age of 18 were in families living 
in poverty; this population includes 10.9 million 5- to 
17-year-olds and 4.8 million children under age 5 living 
in poverty. The percentage of children under age 18 living 
in poverty varied across racial/ethnic groups. In 2013, the 
percentage was highest for Black children (39 percent), 
followed by American Indian/Alaska Native children 
(36 percent), Hispanic children (32 percent). Pacific 
Islander children (27 percent), and children of Two or 


more races (21 percent). The poverty rate was lowest 
for White and Asian children (13 percent each). The 
percentage of children under age 18 living in poverty 
in 2013 was 4 percentage points higher than in 2008 
(18 percent). For all racial/ethnic groups, except Pacific 
Islanders, the percentage of children under age 18 living 
in poverty in 2013 was higher than in 2008. The increases 
between 2008 and 2013 ranged from 2 percentage points 
for both White and Asian children to 7 percentage points 
for American Indian/Alaska Native children. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


52 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Demographics 


Figure 4. Percentage of children under age 18 iiving in poverty, by seiected race/ethnicity subgroups: 2008 and 2013 

Hispanic 


Percent 

100 

- — 

80 


60 


40 



28 

20 

-| 

n 



in iin in mfl jLr^ in 

^111 II I ai 1 1 n ■ h 


24 


18 21 


13 



Total Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Dominican Salvadoran Other Central South Other 

Hispanic American American Hispanic 

or Latino 


Percent 


Asian 



Asian 

Race/ethnicity subgroups 


■ 2008 □ 2013 


^ Excludes Taiwanese. Taiwanese is included in “Other Asian." 

NOTE: The measure of child poverty includes all children who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child who is the spouse 
of the householder). The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) the housing unit. "Other Central American" includes 
children from Central American countries other than the ones shown. Similarly. "Other Hispanio or Latino" refers to children from Hispanic or Latino countries 
other than the ones shown and "Other Asian" refers to children from Asian countries other than the ones shown. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS). 2008 and 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. 
table 102.60. 


Among Hispanics in 2013, the percentage of children 
under age 18 living in poverty ranged from 18 percent 
to 35 percent: South American children (18 percent), 
Cuban children (23 percent), Other Hispanic or Latino 
children (24 percent), Salvadoran children (26 percent), 
Puerto Rican children (34 percent), Mexican children 
(34 percent). Other Central American children 
(34 percent), and Dominican children (35 percent). 
Among Asians, the percentage of children living in 
poverty ranged from 6 percent to 25 percent: Japanese 
children (6 percent), Asian Indian children (6 percent), 
Filipino children (7 percent), Korean children 
(11 percent), Chinese children (12 percent), Vietnamese 
children (15 percent), and Other Asian children 
(25 percent). Among children of Two or more races, the 
percentage living in poverty was lowest for White-Asian 
children (8 percent), followed by White-American Indian/ 
Alaska Native children (21 percent). Other children of 
Two or more races (22 percent), and White-Black children 
(29 percent). 


For most racial/ethnic subgroups, the percentage of 
children under age 18 living in poverty was higher in 
2013 than in 2008. Among Hispanics, the percentage of 
children living in poverty increased by 4 percentage points 
for Mexican, Dominican, Puerto Rican, South American, 
and Other Hispanic or Latino children each, 6 percentage 
points for Salvadoran children, 9 percentage points for 
Other Central American children, and 10 percentage 
points for Cuban children. Among Asians, the percentage 
of children living in poverty increased during this period 
by 2 percentage points for Chinese children, 3 percentage 
points for Filipino children, and 6 percentage points for 
Other Asian children, but the percentage of children 
living in poverty was not measurably different for the 
remaining Asian subgroups: Asian Indian, Japanese, 
Korean, and Vietnamese. Among children of Two or 
more races, the percentage of children living in poverty 
was higher in 2013 than in 2008 for all subgroups: 

2 percentage points higher for White-Asian children, 

3 percentage points higher for both White-Black children 
and White-American Indian/Alaska Native children, and 
5 percentage points higher for Other children of Two or 
more races. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Population Characteristics 53 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Demographics 


Figure 5. Percentage of children under age 18 iiving in poverty, by race/ethnicity and family structure; 2013 


Percent 



Total 


White 


Black Hispanic Asian 


Race/ethnicity 


Pacific American Two or 

Islander Indian/ more races 

Alaska Native 


I Married-couple household Q Mother-only household Q Father-only household 

NOTE: The measure of child poverty includes all children who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption (except a child who is the 
spouse of the householder). The householder is the person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) the housing unit. To determine family 
structure, children are classified by fheir parenfs' marital status or, if no parenfs are present in the household, by the marital status of fhe householder who is 
relafed fo fhe children. Mother-only households are those that have only a female householder, and father-only households are those that have only a male 
householder. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicify. 

SOURCE: U.S. Deparfmenf of Commerce. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 201 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 1 02.60. 


Among children under age 18 living in poverty in 2013, 
those living in a mother-only household had the highest 
rate of poverty (45 percent) and those living in a father- 
only household had the next highest rate (29 percent). 
Children living in a married-couple household had the 
lowest rate of poverty at 1 1 percent. This pattern of 
married-couple households having the lowest rate of 
poverty was observed across all racial/ethnic groups. For 
example, in 2013, among Black children under age 18 the 
poverty rates were 52 percent for children living in a 
mother-only household, 41 percent for those living in a 
father-only household, and 16 percent for those living in 
a married-couple household. 


For all family types, the poverty rates for Black, 

Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native children 
were generally higher than the national poverty rates in 
2013. In contrast, the poverty rates for White and Asian 
children were generally lower than the national poverty 
rates. For example, among children living in mother-only 
households in 2013 the national poverty rate (45 percent) 
was lower than the rates for Black children (52 percent), 
Hispanic children (50 percent), and American Indian/ 
Alaska Native children (55 percent), but higher than the 
rates for White children (36 percent), Asian children 
(28 percent), and children of Two or more races 
(41 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


54 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 1 /Population Characteristics 
Section: Demographics 


Endnotes: 

' In this indicator, data on household income and the 
number of people living in the household are combined with 
the poverty threshold, published by the Census Bureau, to 
determine the poverty status of children. A household includes 
all families in which children are related to the householder by 
birth or adoption, or through marriage. The householder is the 
person (or one of the people) who owns or rents (maintains) 
the housing unit. In 2013, the poverty threshold for a family 
of four with two related children under 1 8 years old was 
$23,624 ( http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povertv/data/ 
threshld/threshl 3.xls ). 


^Mulligan, G.M., Hastedt, S., and McCarroll, J.C. (2012). 
First- Time Kindergartners in 201 0-1 1: First Findings From 
the Kindergarten Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal 
Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K2011) (NCES 
2012-049). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 
National Center for Education Statistics. 

^Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., KewalRamani, A., 

Zhang, ]., Kristapovich, E, and Manning, E. (2012). Higher 
Education: Gaps in Access and Persistence Study (NCES 2012- 
046). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 
National Center for Education Statistics. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Poverty, Racial/ethnic group 

102.40 and 102.60 

Related indicators: Disparities in Educational Outcomes 
Among Male Youth (Spotlight), Concentration of Public 
School Students Eligible for Eree or Reduced-Price Lunch 
(indicator 17) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Population Characteristics 55 


The indicators in this chapter of The Condition of Education describe trends in enrollments across all levels of education. 
Enrollment is a key indicator of the scope of and access to educational opportunities, and functions as a basic descriptor 
of American education. Changes in enrollment may impact the demand for educational resources such as qualified 
teachers, physical facilities, and funding levels, all of which are required to provide high-quality education for our 
nation’s students. 

The indicators in this chapter include information on enrollment rates by age group as well as by level of the education 
system, namely, preprimary, elementary and secondary, undergraduate, graduate and professional, and adult education. 
Some of the indicators in this chapter provide information about the characteristics of the students who are enrolled in 
formal education and, in some cases, how enrollment rates of different types of students vary across schools. 

This chapter’s indicators, as well as additional indicators on participation in education, are available at The Condition of 
Education website: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe . 


56 The Condition of Education 2015 



Chapter 2 

Participation in Education 


All Ages 

Indicator 6. Enrollment Trends by Age 58 

Preprimary Education 

Indicator 7. Preprimary Enrollment 62 

Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 

Indicator 8. Public School Enrollment 68 

Indicator 9. Charter School Enrollment 70 

Indicator 10. Private School Enrollment 74 

Indicator 1 1 . Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools 80 

Indicator 12. English Language Learners 84 

Indicator 13. Children and Youth With Disabilities 88 

Postsecondary Enrollment 

Indicator 14. Undergraduate Enrollment 92 

Indicator 15. Postbaccoloureote Enrollment 98 


Participation in Education 57 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: All Ages 


Indicator 6 

Enrollment Trends by Age 

In 2013, some 94 percent of 5- to 6-year-olds and 98 percent of 7- to 13-year-olds 
were enrolled in elementary or secondary school. In that same year, 47 percent 
of 18- to 1 9-year-olds and 39 percent of 20- to 24-year-olds were enrolled in 
postsecondary education. Aithough the totai schooi enroiiment rate of most age 
groups from 3 to 34 did not change measurabiy between 2012 and 2013, the 
enrollment rate of 16- to 17-year-olds was 2 percentage points lower in 2013 than 
in 2012. 


Changes in the number of students enrolled in school 
can stem from fluctuations in population size or shifts in 
enrollment rates. Enrollment rates may vary in response 
to changes in state compulsory attendance requirements, 
changes in the prevalence of homeschooling, changes in 
perceptions regarding the value of education (particularly 
at the preschool and college levels), and changes in the 
amount of time it takes to complete a degree. From 1990 


to 2013, school enrollment rates increased for children 
ages 3-4 and for each age group from 18 to 34; however, 
enrollment rates decreased for those ages 5-6 and 7-13 
during the same period. For most age groups from 3 
to 34, total school enrollment rates did not change 
measurably between 2012 and 2013. The only exception 
was for children ages 16-17, whose enrollment rate was 
lower in 2013 (94 percent) than in 2012 (96 percent). 


Figure 1. Percentage of the population ages 3-17 enrolled in school, by age group: October 1990-2013 



^ Beginning in 1994, preprimary enrollment data were collected using new procedures. As a result, pre-1994 data may not be comparable to data from 1994 
or later. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 1990-2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2074, table 103.20. 


Between 1990 and 2013, the enrollment rate for children 
ages 3-4, who are typically enrolled in nursery school 
or preschool, increased from 44 to 55 percent, with 
most of the growth occurring between 1990 and 2000. 
For children ages 5-6, who are typically enrolled in 


kindergarten or first grade, the enrollment rate fluctuated 
between 94 and 97 percent in the 1990s, and then 
declined from 96 percent in 2000 to 94 percent in 2013. 
The enrollment rate for 5- to 6-year-olds did not change 
measurably between 2012 and 2013. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


58 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


The enrollment rate for 7- to 13-year-olds decreased from 
nearly 100 percent in 1990 to 98 percent in 2000, but 
did not measurably change between 2000 and 2013 
(98 percent). For 14- to 15-year-olds, there was not a 
measurable change between 1990 and 2000 (both 
99 percent) or between 2000 and 2013 (98 percent). 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: All Ages 

Meanwhile, the overall enrollment rate for 16- to 17-year- 
olds fluctuated between 93 and 94 percent from 1990 
to 2000, and between 93 and 96 percent from 2000 to 
2013. This age group’s enrollment rate was 2 percentage 
points lower in 2013 (94 percent) than in 2012 
(96 percent). 


Figure 2. Percentage of the population ages 18-19 enroiied in schooi, by education ievel: October 1990-2013 



1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 

Year 


SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 1990-2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2074, table 103.20. 


Young adults at ages 18-19 are typically transitioning 
into either postsecondary education or the workforce. 
Between 1990 and 2013, the overall enrollment rate 
(i.e., enrollment at both the secondary level and the 
postsecondary level) for young adults ages 18-19 
increased from 57 to 67 percent. The enrollment rate 
during this period for these young adults increased 


from 15 to 20 percent at the secondary level and from 
43 to 47 percent at the postsecondary level. Between 
2000 and 2013, the overall enrollment rate for those 
in this age range increased from 61 to 67 percent; the 
enrollment rate at the secondary level increased from 
16 to 20 percent but was not measurably different at the 
postsecondary level. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 59 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: All Ages 


Figure 3. Percentage of the population ages 20-34 enrolled in school, by age group: October 1990-2013 


Percent 



Year 


SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 1 990-201 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2014. table 1 03.20. 


Most 20- to 34-year-old students are enrolled in 
college or graduate school. The enrollment rate for 
20- to 24-year-olds increased from 29 to 39 percent 
between 1990 and 2013. Also, the enrollment rates 
increased from 10 to 13 percent for 25- to 29-year-olds 
and from 6 to 7 percent for 30- to 34-year-olds. Between 


2000 and 2013, enrollment rates for 20- to 24-year-olds 
increased from 32 to 39 percent and from 11 to 13 percent 
for 25- to 29-year-olds. The enrollment rate for 
30- to 34-year-olds in 2013 (7 percent) was not 
measurably different from the rate in 2000 (7 percent), 
but it was lower than the rate in 2010 (8 percent). 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, Glossary: College, Secondary school 

table 103.20 

Related indicators: Preprimary Enrollment (indicator 7), 

Public School Enrollment (indicator 8), Charter School 
Enrollment (indicator 9), Private School Enrollment 
(indicator 10), Undergraduate Enrollment (indicator 14), 

Postbaccalaureate Enrollment (indicator 15) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


60 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Indicator 7 

Preprimary Enrollment 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Preprimary Education 


The percentage of 3- to 5-year-olds enrolled In preprimary programs Increased 
from 59 to 64 percent between 7 990 and 2000, but there has been no measurable 
Increase since then. The percentage of these children who attended full-day 
programs increased from 39 to 60 percent between 7 990 and 2013 overall, although 
the 2013 full-day enrollment rate was not measurably different from the 2012 rate. 


Preprimary programs are groups or classes that are 
organized to provide educational experiences for children 
and include kindergarten, preschool, and nursery school 
programs. From 1990 to 2013, the percentage of 3- to 


5-year-olds enrolled in preprimary programs increased 
from 59 to 65 percent, with all of the growth occurring 
between 1990 and 2000. 


Figure 1. Percentage of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children enrolled in preprimary programs: 1990 through 2013 



1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 


Year 


NOTE: Preprimary programs are groups or classes that are organized to provide educational experiences for children and include kindergarten, preschool, 
and nursery school programs. Enrollment data for 5-year-olds include only those students in preprimary programs and do not include those enrolled in 
primary programs. Beginning in 1994, new procedures were used in the Current Population Survey to collect preprimary enrollment data. As a result, pre-1994 
data may not be comparable to data from 1 994 or later. Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutional population. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS). October 1990 through 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 202.10. 


The percentages of 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in 
preprimary programs in 2013 (42 and 68 percent, 
respectively) were higher than the percentages enrolled in 
1990 (33 and 56 percent, respectively) but not measurably 
different from the percentages enrolled in 2000 or 2012. 
In contrast, the percentage of 5-year-olds enrolled in 


preprimary programs declined from 89 percent in 1990 
to 84 percent in 2013. The percentage of 5-year-olds 
enrolled in preprimary programs in 2013 was not 
measurably different from the percentage enrolled in 2012 
(84 and 85 percent, respectively). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


62 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Preprimary Education 


Figure 2. Percentage of 3- to 4-year-old children and 5-year-old children in preprimary programs attending full-day 
programs: 1990 through 2013 


Percent 



Year 


NOTE: Preprimary programs are groups or classes that are organized to provide educational experiences for children and include kindergarten, preschool, 
and nursery school programs. Enrollment data for 5-year-olds include only those students in preprimary programs and do not include those enrolled in 
primary programs. Beginning in 1994, new procedures were used in the Current Population Survey to collect preprimary enrollment data. As a result, pre-1994 
data may not be comparable to data from 1 994 or later. Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutional population. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS). October 1990 through 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 202.10. 


The percentage of 3- to 5-year-olds in preprimary 
programs who attended full-day programs increased from 
39 percent in 1990 to 60 percent in 2013. This increase 
in the full-day enrollment rate was observed for 3- to 
4-year-olds as well as 5-year-olds. More recently, the 
full-day enrollment rate was higher in 2013 (73 percent) 
than in 2000 (59 percent) for 5-year-olds, but the rate did 
not change measurably for 3- to 4-year-olds. Enrollment 
rates in full-day preprimary programs increased more 


rapidly between 1990 and 2013 for 5-year-old children 
than for 3- to 4-year-old children. In 1990, the percentage 
of full-day enrollment for 5-year-olds (42 percent) was 
7 percentage points higher than the percentage of full-day 
enrollment for 3- to 4-year-olds (35 percent). By 2013, 
the percentage of full-day enrollment for 5-year-olds 
(73 percent) was 22 percentage points higher than the 
percentage of full-day enrollment for 3- to 4-year-olds 
(51 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 63 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Preprimary Education 


Figure 3. Percentage of 3- to 5-year-old children enrolled in preprimary programs, by race/ethnicity and ievel of 
program: October 2013 

Percent 

100 

90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 

White Black Hispanic Asian American Indian/ Two or 

Alaska Native more races 



Race/ethnicity 

□ Preschool □ Kindergarten 


NOTE: Preprimary programs are groups or classes that are organized to provide educational experiences for children and include kindergarten, preschool, 
and nursery school programs. Enrollment data for 5-year-olds include only those students in preprimary programs and do not include those enrolled in 
primary programs. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutional population. Detail 
may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 202.20. 


In 2013, some 38 percent of 3- to 5-year olds were 
enrolled in preschool programs and 27 percent were 
enrolled in kindergarten programs. A lower percentage of 
Hispanic 3- to 5-year-olds (31 percent) were enrolled in 
preschool programs than of 3- to 5-year-olds who were 


White (41 percent), Black (37 percent), Asian (41 percent), 
or Two or more races (44 percent). A higher percentage 
of Black 3- to 5-year-olds (33 percent) were enrolled 
in kindergarten than of White (25 percent), Hispanic 
(27 percent), and Asian (23 percent) 3- to 5-year-olds. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


64 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 







Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Preprimary Education 


Figure 4. Percentage of 3- to 5-year-old children enrolled in preprimary programs, by parents' highest level of 
education and level of program: October 2013 


Percent 



Less than High school/ Vocational/technical Associate's Bachelcr's Graduate or 

high school GED or some college degree degree protessional degree 


Parents' highest level of education 

□ Preschool □ Kindergarten 


NOTE: Preprimary programs are groups or classes that are organized to provide educational experiences for children and include kindergarten, preschool, 
and nursery school programs. Enrollment data for 5-year-olds include only those students in preprimary programs and do not include those enrolled in 
primary programs. Parents' highest level of education is defined as the diploma attained by the most educated parent. Data are based on sample surveys of 
the civilian noninstitutional population. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 201 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 20i4, table 202.20. 


Enrollment in preprimary programs varied by parents’ 
highest level of education, defined as the highest level 
of education attained by the most educated parent in 
the child’s household. In 2013, the overall percentage of 
3- to 5-year-olds enrolled in preprimary programs was 
higher for those children whose parents had a graduate 
or professional degree (75 percent), as compared to 
those with a bachelor’s degree (70 percent), an associate’s 
degree (64 percent), some college or a vocational degree 
(62 percent), a high school credential (59 percent), or 
less than a high school credential (55 percent). The 
overall enrollment rate was also higher for those children 
whose parents had a bachelor’s degree than those 
with all other levels of education, except a graduate or 
professional degree. 

The overall preprimary enrollment differences reflected 
differences in the percentage of preschool enrollment. 
The percentage of 3- to 5-year-olds enrolled in 
preschool programs was higher for those children 
whose parents had either a graduate or professional 
degree (49 percent) or a bachelor’s degree (45 percent). 
Preschool enrollment was lower in households where 
the parents’ highest level of education was an associate’s 
degree (36 percent), some college or a vocational degree 


(35 percent), a high school credential (31 percent), or 
less than a high school credential (27 percent). The 
percentage of 3- to 5-year-olds enrolled in kindergarten 
programs was not measurably different across all levels of 
parents’ education. 

The percentage of 3- to 5-year-olds enrolled in 
preprimary programs who attended full-day or part-day 
programs also varied by parents’ highest level of 
education. In 2013, enrollment in full-day preprimary 
programs was higher for those children whose parents 
had a high school credential (67 percent) as compared to 
the full-day enrollment rates for children whose parents’ 
highest level of education was a graduate or professional 
degree (59 percent), a bachelor’s degree (57 percent), 
an associate’s degree (58 percent), or less than a high 
school credential (59 percent). Conversely, the percentage 
of 3- to 5-year-olds enrolled in part-day preprimary 
programs was lower in households where the parents’ 
highest level of education was a high school credential 
(33 percent) as compared to a graduate or professional 
degree (41 percent), a bachelor’s degree (43 percent), an 
associate’s degree (42 percent), or less than a high school 
credential (41 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 65 





Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Preprimary Education 


Figure 5. Percentage of 3- to 4-year-old children enrolled in preschool education, by country; 2012 
Country 



Percent 


NOTE: Enrollment rates should be interpreted with care. For each country, this figure shows the number of persons who are enrolled in that country as a 
percentage of that country's total population in the 3- and 4-year-old age group. However, some of a country's population may be enrolled in a different 
country, and some persons enrolled in the country may be residents of a different country. Enrollment rates may be underestimated for countries such 
as Luxembourg that are net exporters of students and may be overestimated for countries that are net importers. 'OECD Average' refers to the mean of 
the data values for all reporting Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, to which each country reporting data 
contributes equally. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Education at a Glance 2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. 
table 601 .35. 


In 2012, some 54 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds were 
enrolled in preschool programs in the United States, 
compared to the average of 76 percent enrollment 
for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 


Development (OECD) countries. Among the 34 OECD 
countries reporting data that year, the percentage of 
3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool education ranged 
from 12 percent in Turkey to 99 percent in France. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
202.10, 202.20, and 601.35 

Related indicators: Public School Enrollment (indicator 8), 
Private School Enrollment (indicator 10), Kindergarten Entry 


Status: On-Time, Delayed-Entry, and Repeating Kindergartners 
[The Condition of Education 2013 Spotlight] 

Glossary: Nursery school 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


66 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Indicator 8 

Public School Enrollment 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


From school years 2012-13 through 2024-25, overall public elementary and 
secondary school enrollment is projected to increase by 6 percent 
(from 49.8 million to 52.9 million students), with changes across states ranging from 
on increase of 26 percent in Nevada to a decrease of 1 1 percent in West Virginia. 


Public school enrollment changes are largely reflective of 
demographic changes in the population. This indicator 
discusses overall changes in public school (including 
both traditional public school and public charter school) 
enrollment as well as changes in public school enrollment 
within grade levels and by state. In school year 2012-13, 
some 49.8 million students were enrolled in public 
elementary and secondary schools. Of these students, 

70 percent (35.0 million) were in prekindergarten (preK) 
through grade 8 and 30 percent (14.8 million) were in 
grades 9 through 12. 


Following a decline in the 1970s and early 1980s, 
enrollment began rising in the latter part of the 1980s and 
continued to increase throughout the 1990s and 2000s. 
Between 2000-01 and 2012-13, public school enrollment 
increased by 2.6 million students, reaching a total of 

49.8 million students. From 2012-13 to 2024-25 (the last 
year for which projected data are available), total public 
school enrollment is projected to increase by 6 percent, to 

52.9 million students. 


Figure 1. Actual and projected public school enrollment in prekindergarten (preK) through grade 12, by grade level: 
School years 2000-01 through 2024-25 


Enrollment (In millions) 

60.0 r 


50.0 


40.0 - 


30.0 - 


20.0 - 


10.0 - 


/Total 


49.8 


Projected 




y PreK through grade 8 

35.0 


— 

— 



— 

y Grades 9 through 1 2 

14.8 


— 




— 


r 

2020-21 


n 

2024-25 


2000-01 


2005-06 


2010-11 2012-13 


2015-16 


School year 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), 'State Nonfiscai Survey of Public Elementary/ 
Secondary Education,' 2000-01 through 2012-1 3: and State Public Elementary and Secondary Enrollment Projection Model, 1 980 through 2024. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2014, tables 203.20, 203.25, and 203.30. 


Enrollment trends in preK through grade 8 and grades 
9 through 12 have differed over time as successive 
cohorts of students have moved through the public school 
system. For example, enrollment in preK through grade 
8 decreased throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, while 
enrollment in grades 9 through 12 generally did not begin 
to decrease until the late 1970s and continued to decrease 


further into the 1980s than enrollment in preK through 
grade 8 did. Enrollment in preK through grade 8 started 
to rise in the latter part of the 1980s and continued to 
rise throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Between 2000-01 
and 2012-13, enrollment in preK through grade 8 
increased by 1.3 million students, reaching a total of 
35.0 million students. Public school enrollment in preK 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


68 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


through grade 8 is projected to increase to 37.6 million 
students in 2024-25, an increase of 7 percent over 
2012-13. After declining in the 1980s, public school 
enrollment in grades 9 through 12 began to increase again 
in 1990-91. Despite a period of decline from 2008-09 
through 2011—12, the years from 2000—01 to 2012—13 
saw an overall 9 percent increase in enrollment in grades 
9 through 12, which resulted in a total of 14.8 million 
students in 2012-13. Between 2012-13 and 2024-25, 
enrollment in grades 9 through 12 is projected to increase 
by 4 percent, to 15.3 million students. 

Figure 2. Projected percentage change in pubiic school enrollment in prekindergarten through grade 12, by state; 

Between schooi years 2012-13 and 2024-25 


Rl 


Decrease of 5 percent or more (3) 
Decrease of less than 5 percent (11) 

ease of less than 5 percent (14) 

ease of more than 5 
less than 15 percent (16) 

of 15 percent or more (7) 


SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), ‘State Nonfiscai Survey of Public Elementary/ 
Secondary Education," 201 2-13: and State Public Elementary and Secondary Enrollment Projeotion Model, 1980 through 2024. See Digest of Education 
Statistics 2014. table 203.20. 



Public school enrollment in preK through grade 
12 increased in 32 states and the District of Columbia 
from 2000-01 to 2012-13, with the largest increases 
occurring in Nevada, Utah, Texas, and Arizona 
(31, 27, 25, and 24 percent, respectively). During this 
period, total enrollment declined in the other 18 states, 
with the largest decreases occurring in Vermont and 
Maine (12 and 10 percent, respectively). 


Changes in total enrollment are also projected to vary 
across states from 2012-13 to 2024-25. For example. 

West Virginia is projected to see the largest percentage 
decrease in total enrollment (11 percent), while Nevada, 
North Dakota, and Arizona are projected to see the largest 
percentage increases (26, 23, and 21 percent, respectively). 
Nevada and Arizona were also among the states with the 
largest percentage increases from 2000-01 to 2012-13. 
Changes in public school enrollment are projected to 
differ by state at the elementary and secondary school 
levels from 2012—13 to 2024—25. Reflecting the larger 
national enrollment increase expected at the elementary 
school level during this period, 37 states and the District 


of Columbia are expected to have enrollment increases 
in preK through grade 8, compared with increases 
for 33 states and the District of Columbia in grades 
9 through 12. In preK through grade 8, enrollment is 
projected to increase by more than 20 percent in Nevada, 
Arizona, and Alaska, but it is projected to decrease by 
more than 10 percent in West Virginia. Enrollment in 
grades 9 through 12 is expected to increase by more than 
20 percent in North Dakota and Utah, but it is projected 
to decrease by 10 percent or more in New Hampshire, 
Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, and Michigan. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Elementary school, Prekindergarten, Public school or 

203.20, 203.25, and 203.30; tables ESE 70 through ESE 89 at institution. Secondary school 
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/AnnualReports/historicaltables.asp . 

Related indicators: Enrollment Trends by Age (indicator 6), 

Charter School Enrollment (indicator 9), Private School 
Enrollment (indicator 10), Characteristics of Traditional Public 
and Public Charter Schools (indicator 16), Teachers and Pupil/ 

Teacher Ratios (indicator 19) 

For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 69 


Indicator 9 

Charter School Enrollment 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


From school year 1999-2000 to 2012-13, the number of students enrolled in public 
charter schools increased from 0.3 million to 2.3 million. During this period, the 
percentage of public school students who attended charter schools increased 
from 0.7 to 4.6 percent. 


A public charter school is a publicly funded school that 
is typically governed by a group or organization under 
a legislative contract (or charter) with the state or 
jurisdiction. The charter exempts the school from certain 
state or local rules and regulations. In return for flexibility 
and autonomy, the charter school must meet the 
accountability standards outlined in its charter. A 
school’s charter is reviewed periodically (typically every 
3 to 5 years) by the group or jurisdiction that granted 
it and can be revoked if guidelines on curriculum and 
management are not followed or if the standards are 
not met.' 


The first law allowing the establishment of charter 
schools was passed in Minnesota in 1991.^ Charter school 
legislation had been passed in 42 states and the District 
of Columbia as of school year 2012-13.^ Charter school 
legislation has not been passed in the following states: 
Alabama, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia. Despite 
legislative approval in Mississippi and Washington, 
no charter schools were operational in these states in 
2012-13. 


Figure 1. Number of public charter schoois, by schooi ievel: Seiected schooi years, 1999-2000 through 2012-13 



1999-2000 2001-02 2003-04 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2012-13 

School year 

NOTE: "Elementary" includes schools beginning with grade 6 or below and with no grade higher than 8."Seoondary" includes schools with no grade lower 
than 7. "Combined elementary/secondary" includes schools beginning with grade 6 or below and ending with grade 9 or above. Other schools not classified 
by grade span are included in the "All charter schools" count but are not presented separately in the figure. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD). "Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe 
Survey," selected school years, 1999-2000 through 2012-1 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 216.20 and 216.30. 


From school year 1999-2000 to 2012-13, the percentage 
of all public schools that were public charter schools 
increased from 1.7 to 6.2 percent, and the total number 
of public charter schools increased from 1,500 to 6,100. 
During the most recent period from 2011—12 to 2012—13, 
the percentage of all public schools that were charter 
schools increased from 5.8 to 6.2 percent, and the 
total number of public charter schools increased from 
5,700 to 6,100. In addition to increasing in number. 


charter schools have generally increased in enrollment size 
over time. For instance, the percentages of charter schools 
with the largest enrollment sizes (500-999 students and 
1,000 or more students) increased from 1999-2000 to 
2012-13 (from 11 to 22 percent), and the percentage of 
charter schools with the smallest enrollment size (under 
300 students) decreased from 77 to 54 percent. Similar 
patterns were observed during the most recent period 
from 2011-12 to 2012-13. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


70 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Figure 2. Number of students enrolled in public charter schools, by school level: Selected school years, 1999-2000 
through 2012-13 

Number of students (in millions) 



School year 

NOTE: “Elementary" includes schools beginning with grade 6 or below and with no grade higher than 8. "Secondary" inoludes schools with no grade lower 
than 7. “Combined elementary/secondary" includes schools beginning with grade 6 or below and ending with grade 9 or above. Other schools not classified 
by grade span are included in the "All charter schools" count but are not presented separately in the figure. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistios, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe 
Survey," selected school years, 1999-2000 through 2012-13. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 216.20 and 216.30. 


From school year 1999-2000 to 2012-13, the number 
of students enrolled in public charter schools increased 
from 0.3 million to 2.3 million. During this period, 
larger numbers of charter school students were enrolled 
in elementary schools than in any of the following types 
of charter schools: secondary, combined, and other types 
that were not classified by grade span. Since the increase 
in the number of charter school students (1.9 million) 


was larger than the increase in the number of traditional 
public school students (0.9 million), the percentage of 
public school students who attended charter schools 
increased from 0.7 to 4.6 percent during this period. 
Between school years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the number 
of students enrolled in public charter schools increased 
from 2.1 million to 2.3 million. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 71 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Figure 3. Percentage of all public school students enrolled in public charter schools, by state: School year 2012-13 




U.S. average: 4.6 percent 



»> 


-□ DE 


DC 


I I No charter school law (8) 

I I Less than 5.0 percent (29) 

□ 5.0 percent to 9.9 percent (1 1 ) 
I 10.0 percent or more (3) 


NOTE: Categorizations are based on unrounded percentages. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Nationai Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD). "Public Eiementary/Secondary School Universe 
Survey," 201 2-1 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 21 6.90. 


Among all states in school year 2012-13, California 
enrolled the largest number of students in charter schools 
(471,000, representing 8 percent of total public school 
students in the state), and the District of Columbia 
enrolled the highest percentage of public school 


students in charter schools (42 percent, representing 
31,600 students). After the District of Columbia, 
Arizona had the highest percentage (14 percent) of 
charter school enrollment as a percentage of total public 
school enrollment. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


72 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Figure 4. Percentage distribution ot public charter school students, by roce/ethnicity: School years 1999-2000 and 
2012-13 


Percent 



Alaska Native 


Race/ethnicity 

□ 1999-2000 □ 2012-13 


NOTE: Data for the "Two or more races" category were not available prior to 2009-1 0; therefore, estimates for this category are not presented in the figure 
and the 201 2-13 percentages for all racial/ethnic groups will not sum to 100 percent. In 201 2-13, some 3 percent of students were of Two or more races. The 
1999-2000 percentages will not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe 
Survey," 1999-2000 and 2012-13. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, fable 216.30. 


From school year 1999-2000 to 2012-13, charter schools 
experienced changes in their demographic composition 
similar to those seen at traditional public schools. The 
percentage of charter school students who were Hispanic 
increased (from 20 to 29 percent), as did the percentage 
who were Asian/Pacific Islander (from 3 to 4 percent). 

In contrast, the percentage of charter school students 
who were White decreased from 42 to 35 percent. The 
percentages who were Black and American Indian/Alaska 
Native decreased as well (from 34 to 28 percent and 
from 2 to 1 percent, respectively). Data were collected for 
charter school students of Two or more races beginning 
in 2009-10. Students of Two or more races accounted for 
3 percent of the charter school population in 2012-13. 


In school year 2012-13, the percentage of students 
attending high-poverty schools — schools in which 
more than 75 percent of students qualify for free or 
reduced-price lunch (FRPL) under the National School 
Lunch Program — was higher for charter school students 
(36 percent) than for traditional public school students 
(23 percent). In the same year, 20 percent of charter 
school students and 21 percent of traditional public 
school students attended low-poverty schools, in which 
25 percent or less of students qualify for FRPL. 


Endnotes: 

' Berman, R, Ericson, J., Kamprath, N., Nelson, B., 

Perry, R., Silverman, D., and Solomon, D. (2000). 

The State of Charter Schools 2000. National Center for 
Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research 
and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. 
Washington, DC. 

^ Adelman, N., Anderson, L., Cotton, L., Donnelly, M., 
Finnigan, K., and Price, T. (2004). Evaluation of the Public 


Charter Schools Program: Final Report. U.S. Department of 
Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary. Washington, 
DC: Policy and Program Studies Service. 

^ The Center for Education Reform. (2014). Choice and 
Charter Schools: Charter School Law. Retrieved January 
5, 2015, from www.edreform.com/issues/choice-charter- 
schools/laws-legislation . 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
216.20, 216.30, and 216.90; Digest of Education Statistics 2013, 
table 216.90 

Related indicators: Characteristics of Traditional Public and 
Public Charter Schools (indicator 16) 


Glossary: Charter school. Combined school. Elementary 
school. Free or reduced-price lunch. National School Lunch 
Program, Secondary school. Student membership. Traditional 
public school 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 73 


Indicator 10 

Private School Enrollment 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Private school enrollment in prekindergarten through grade 12 increased from 5.9 
million in 1995-96 to 6.3 million in 2001-02, then decreased to 5.3 million in 2011-12. 
The percentage of all students in private schools decreased from 12 percent in 
1995-96 to 10 percent in 2011-12. 


In school year 2011-12, some 5.3 million students were students who were enrolled in private schools that did not 
enrolled in private schools, excluding prekindergarten offer at least one grade of kindergarten or higher. 

Figure 1. Private school enrollment in prekindergarten (preK) through grade 12, by grade level: School years 1995-96 
through 2011-12 

Enrollment (in millions) 



Schooi year 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 1 995-96 through 201 1-12. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2013, table 205.20. 


The percentage of all students in private schools decreased 
from 12 percent in 1995—96 to 10 percent in 2011—12. 
Private school enrollment in prekindergarten (preK) 
through grade 12 increased from 5.9 million in 1995—96 
to 6.3 million in 2001-02, then decreased to 5.3 million 
in 2011—12. Similar to overall private school enrollment. 


private school enrollment in preK through grade 8 
increased from 4.8 million in 1995—96 to 5.0 million 
in 2001—02, then decreased to 4.0 million in 2011—12. 
However, private school enrollment in grades 
9 through 12 increased from 1.2 million in 1995—96 to 
1.3 million in 2011—12. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


74 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 

Figure 2. Number of private school students in prekindergarten through grade 12, by schooi type: Seiected schooi 
years, 1995-96 through 2011-12 


Number (in millions) 



School year 


NOTE: Prekindergarten students who are enrolled in private schools that do not offer kindergarten or higher grades are not included in this analysis. Catholic 
schools include parochial, diocesan, and private Catholic schools. Conservative Christian schools have membership in at least one of four associations: 
Accelerated Christian Education, American Association of Christian Schools, Association of Christian Schools International, or Cral Roberts University 
Education Fellowship. Affiliated religious schools have a specific religious orientation or purpose but are not Catholic. Unaffiliated schools have a more 
general religious orientation or purpose but are not dassified as conservative Christian or affiliated with a specific religion. Nonsectarian schools do not have 
a religious orientation or purpose. 

SCURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), various years, 1 995-96 through 201 1 -1 2. 
See Digest of Education Statistics 2073, table 205.20. 


The total number of private school students attending 
Catholic schools decreased from 2.7 million in 1995-96 
to 2.1 million in 2011—12 and the share of private school 
students in Catholic schools declined from 45 percent 
in 1995—96 to 40 percent in 2011—12. The decrease in 
the share of private school students attending Catholic 
schools was due to a decline in the number of students 
enrolled in Catholic parochial schools (from 1.5 million 


in 1995—96 to 804,000 in 2011—12). The numbers of 
students enrolled in conservative Christian and affiliated 
schools were also lower in 2011-12 (731,000 and 565,000, 
respectively) than in 1995-96 (787,000 and 697,000, 
respectively). In contrast, the number of students enrolled 
in unaffiliated schools was higher in 2011-12 (696,000 
students) than in 1995-96 (611,000 students). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 75 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Figure 3. Percentage distribution of private elementary and secondary school enrollment, by school level and type; 
2011-12 


Percent 



School level 

□ Catholic □ Conservative Christian □ Affiliated □ Unaffiliated Nonsectarian 


NOTE: Prekindergarten students who are enrolled in private schools that do not offer kindergarten or higher grades are not included in this analysis. 
Elementary schools have grade 6 or lower and no grade higher than 8. Seoondary sohools have no grade lower than 7 and include both junior high schools 
and senior high schools. Combined schools include those that have grades lower than 7 and higher than 8, as well as those that do not classify students by 
grade level. Catholic schools include parochial, diocesan, and private Catholic schools. Conservative Christian schools have membership in at least one of 
four associations: Accelerated Christian Education, American Association of Christian Schools, Association of Christian Schools International, or Oral Roberts 
University Education Fellowship. Affiliated religious schools have a specific religious orientation or purpose but are not Catholic. Unaffiliated schools have a 
more general religious orientation or purpose but are not classified as conservative Christian or affiliated with a specific religion. Nonsectarian schools do 
not have a religious orientation or purpose. Ungraded students are prorated into preK-8 and 9-1 2 enrollment totals. Detail may not sum to totals because of 
rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 2011-1 2. See Digest of Education 
Statistios 2013, table 205.30. 


In 2011-12, half of all private elementary school students 
were enrolled in Catholic schools. Additionally, 7 percent 
were enrolled in conservative Christian schools, 10 percent 
were enrolled in affiliated religious schools, 13 percent 
were enrolled in unaffiliated religious schools, and 21 
percent were enrolled in nonsectarian, or nonreligious, 
schools. Similarly, more private secondary school students 


were enrolled in Catholic schools (74 percent) than in any 
other school type. In contrast to the large percentage of 
private school students enrolled in Catholic elementary 
and secondary schools. Catholic students made up the 
minority of private school students enrolled in combined 
schools, at only 8 percent. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


76 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Figure 4. Percentage distribution ot private elementary and secondary school enrollment, by school locale and type: 
2011-12 


Percent 



School locale 

□ Catholic □ Other religious □ Nonsectarian 


NOTE: Prekindergarten students who are enrolled in private schools that do not offer kindergarten or higher grades are not included in this analysis. Catholic 
schools include parochial, diocesan, and private Catholic schools. Other religious schoois include conservative Christian, affiliated, and unaffiliated schools. 
Conservative Christian schools have membership in at least one of four associations: Accelerated Christian Education, American Association of Christian 
Schoois, Association of Christian Schools International, or Cral Roberts University Education Fellowship. Affilioted religious schools have a specific religious 
orientation or purpose but are not Catholic. Unaffiliafed schools have a more general religious orientation or purpose but are not classified as conservative 
Christian or affiliated with a specific religion. Nonseotarlan schools do not have a religious orientation or purpose. Detail may not sum to totals because of 
rounding. 

SCURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 201 1-1 2. See Digest of Eduoatlon 
Statistics 2013, table 205.30. 


In 2011—12, higher percentages of private elementary 
and secondary school students were enrolled in Catholic 
schools than in other religious or nonsectarian schools 
in cities, suburbs, and towns. In towns, for example, 

49 percent of private school students attended Catholic 
schools, while 39 percent attended other religious schools 


and 1 1 percent attended nonsectarian schools. In rural 
areas, however, a lower percentage of private school 
students (17 percent) attended Catholic schools than 
attended nonsectarian (26 percent) or other religious 
schools (57 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 77 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Figure 5. Percentage distribution of private elementary and secondary school enrollment, by roce/ethnicity and school 
type: 2011-12 


Percent 



Alaska Native more races 


Race/ethnicity 


n Catholic □ Other religious n Nonsectarian 


NOTE: Prekindergarten students who are enrolled in private schools that do not offer kindergarten or higher grades are not included in this analysis. Catholic 
schools include parochial, diocesan, and private Catholic schools. Other religious schools include conservative Christian, affiliated, and unaffiliated schools. 
Conservative Christian schools have membership in at least one of four associations: Accelerated Christian Education, American Association of Christian 
Schools, Association of Christian Schools International, or Oral Roberts University Education Fellowship. A/fty/afed religious schools have a specific religious 
orientation or purpose but are not Catholic. Unaffiliated schools have a more general religious orientation or purpose but are not classified as conservative 
Christian or affiliated with a specific religion. Nonsectarian schoois do not have a religious orientation or purpose. Race categories exclude persons of 
Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 2011-1 2. See Digest of Education 
Statistics 2013, table 205.30. 


There were difFerences in private elementary and secondary 
school attendance by school type within racial/ethnic 
groups. For all racial/ethnic groups other than Black, higher 
percentages of private school students attended Catholic 
schools than other religious schools or nonsectarian schools 
in 2011—12. For example, 60 percent of Hispanic private 
school students attended Catholic schools, while 24 percent 
attended other religious schools and 15 percent attended 


nonsectarian schools. In contrast, there was a higher 
percentage of Black private school students attending other 
religious schools (42 percent) than attending Catholic 
schools (35 percent). The percentage of Black private school 
students attending Catholic schools was also higher than the 
percentage attending nonsectarian schools (23 percent). 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2013, tables 
205.20 and 205.30; Digest of Education Statistics 2012, table 3 
Related indicators: Public School Enrollment (indicator 8), 
Teachers and Pupil/Teacher Ratios (indicator 19) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


78 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Indicator 77 

Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools 

From fall 2002 through fall 2012, the number of White students enrolled In publio 
elementary and seoondary sohools deoreased from 28.6 million to 25.4 million, 
and their share of publio sohool enrollment deoreased from 59 to 51 peroent. In 
oontrast, the number of Hispanio students enrolled during this period inoreased 
from 8.6 million to 12.1 million students, and their share of publio sohool enrollment 
inoreased from 18 to 24 peroent. 


Overall enrollment in public elementary and secondary 
schools increased between fall 2002 and fall 2012 from 
48.2 million to 49.8 million and is projected to continue 
increasing to 52.9 million by fall 2024* (See Public School 


Enrollment ). In addition, racial/ethnic distributions of 
public school students across the country and within its 
regions have shifted. These changing distributions may 
reflect demographic shifts in the population. 


Figure 1. Percentage distribution of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity: 
Fall 2002, fall 2012, and fall 2024 



White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific isiander American Indian/ Two or more races 

Alaska Native 


Race/ethnicity 

□ 2002 □ 2012 □ 2024 


t Not applicable. 

NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Prior to 2008, separate data on students of Two or more races were not collected. Detail may not 
sum to totals because of rounding. Data for 2024 are projected. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistios, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary 
and Secondary Education," 2002-03 and 201 2-1 3; and National Elementary and Secondary Enrollment Projection Model, 1 972 through 2024. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2014, table 203.50. 


From fall 2002 through fall 2012, the number of White 
students enrolled in public elementary and secondary 
schools decreased from 28.6 million to 25.4 million, and 
their share of public school enrollment decreased from 
59 to 51 percent. In contrast, the number of Hispanic 
students enrolled during this period increased from 
8.6 million to 12.1 million, and their share of public 


school enrollment increased from 18 to 24 percent. The 
number of Black students enrolled decreased during this 
period from 8.3 million to 7.8 million, and their share of 
public school enrollment decreased from 17 to 16 percent. 
Since 2002, the percentage of Hispanic students enrolled 
in public schools has exceeded the percentage of 
Black students. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


80 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Between fall 2013 and fall 2024, the number of White 
students enrolled in public schools is projected to continue 
decreasing from 25.2 million to 24.2 million, and White 
students’ share of enrollment is expected to decline to 
46 percent. The percentage of students who are White is 
projected to be less than 50 percent beginning in 2014 
and to continue to decline as the enrollments of Hispanic 
students and Asian/Pacific Islander students increase. The 
number of Hispanic public school students is projected to 


increase from 12.5 million in 2013 to 15.5 million in 2024 
and to represent 29 percent of total enrollment in 2024. 
The number of Asian/Pacific Islander students is projected 
to increase from 2.6 million to 3.0 million between 2013 
and 2024, and their enrollment share in 2024 is projected 
to increase to 6 percent. Although the number of Black 
students is projected to fluctuate between 7.7 million and 
7.9 million during this period, their enrollment share is 
projected to decrease from 16 to 15 percent. 


Figure 2. Number of students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools, by region and race/ethnicity: 
Fall 2002 through fall 2012 

Northeast Midwest South West 

Number (in millions) 



Year 

□ White □ Black □ Hispanic □ Asian/Pacific islander n Otheri 
^ Of/ier includes all students who identified themselves as American Indian/Alaska Native orTwo or more raoes. 

NOTE: Race categories exclude persons ot Hispanio ethnioity. Prior to 2008, separate data on students of Two or more races were not collected. In 2008 and 
2009, data on students of Two or more races were reported by only a small number of states. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistios, Common Core of Data (CCD), "State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary 
and Secondary Education," 2002-03 through 2012-1 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 203.50. 


Changes in the racial/ethnic distribution of public school 
enrollment differed by region. From fall 2002 through fall 
2012, the number of White students enrolled and their 
share of public school enrollment decreased in all regions, 
with their shares decreasing by 7 percentage points in the 
Midwest and 8 percentage points each in the Northeast, 
South, and West. The number of Hispanic students 
enrolled and their share of public school enrollment 
increased in all four regions, with their shares increasing 
by 5 percentage points in the Midwest and Northeast and 
7 percentage points in the West and South. From 2002 
through 2012, the number of Black students fluctuated in 


the South but decreased overall in the West, Northeast, 
and Midwest. The percentage of Black students in 
public schools decreased in all regions, with their shares 
decreasing by 1 percentage point each in the Northeast, 
Midwest, and West and 3 percentage points in the South. 
The number of Asian/Paciflc Islander students fluctuated 
in the West and increased in the other three regions. 
Similarly, the percentage of Asian/Paciflc Islander students 
fluctuated in the West but increased by 1 percentage point 
in the Midwest and South and 2 percentage points in 
the Northeast. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 81 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Figure 3. Percentage distribution of students enrolied in pubiic elementary and secondary schools, by region and 



Northeast Midwest South West 


Region 

□ White □ Black □ Hispanic □ Asian/Pacitic Isiander Americn indian/Alaska Native □ Two or more races 


# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary 
and Secondary Education," 2012-13. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 203.50. 


In fall 2012, the racial/ethnic distribution of public 
school enrollment differed by region. In most regions, 
the share of White students was at least 22 percentage 
points greater than the share of Hispanic students. 
However, in the West, the difference between the shares 
of White students and Hispanic students in public school 
enrollment in 2012 was only 2 percentage points (39 and 
41 percent, respectively) following regional shifts in 
White and Hispanic enrollment. The percentage of Black 
student enrollment ranged from 5 percent in the West to 


24 percent in the South. In the Midwest and Northeast, 
Black students’ share of public school enrollment was 
14 and 15 percent, respectively, both of which are within 

2 percentage points of Black students’ overall U.S. share 
(16 percent). American Indian/Alaska Native students 
represented 2 percent or less of student enrollment in each 
region of the United States. Students of Two or more races 
made up 2 percent of enrollment in the Northeast and 

3 percent of enrollment in the South, Midwest, and West. 


Endnotes: 

* 2024 is the last year for which projected data are available. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, Glossary: Public school or institution 

table 203.50 

Related indicators: Public School Enrollment (indicator 8) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


82 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Indicator 12 

English Language Learners 

The percentage of public school students in the United States who were English 
language learners (ELL) was higher in school year 2012-13 (9.2 percent) than in 
2002-03 (8.7 percent) and in 201 1-12 (9.1 percent). In 2012-13, five of the six states 
with the highest percentages of ELL students in their public schools were located in 
the West. 


Students who are English language learners (ELL) 
participate in appropriate programs of language assistance, 
such as English as a Second Language, High Intensity 
Language Training, and bilingual education to help 
ensure that they attain English proficiency, develop 
high levels of academic attainment in English, and meet 
the same academic content and academic achievement 
standards that all students are expected to meet. 
Participation in these types of programs can improve 


students’ English language proficiency which, in turn, has 
been associated with improved educational outcomes.* 

The percentage of public school students in the United 
States who were English language learners was higher 
in school year 2012-13 (9.2 percent, or an estimated 
4.4 million students) than in 2002-03 (8.7 percent, 
or an estimated 4.1 million students) and in 2011-12 
(9.1 percent, or an estimated 4.4 million students). 


Figure 1. Percentage of public schoci students who ore English language learners, by state: School year 2012-13 



NOTE: Categorization based on unrounded percentages. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey," 
2012-13. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 204.20. 


In 2012-13, five of the six states with the highest 
percentages of ELL students in their public schools were 
in the West. In the District of Columbia and six states, 
Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and 
Texas, 10.0 percent or more of public school students 
were English language learners, with ELL students 
constituting 22.8 percent of public school enrollment in 
California. Eighteen states had percentages of ELL public 
school enrollment between 6.0 and 9.9 percent. These 


states were Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, 
Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 
Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington. In 
12 states, the percentage of ELL students in public 
schools was between 3.0 and 5.9 percent; this percentage 
was less than 3.0 percent in 14 states, with West Virginia 
having the lowest percentage at 0.7 percent. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


84 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


The percentage of ELL students in public schools 
increased between 2002-03 and 2012-13 in all but 
11 states, with the largest percentage-point increase 
occurring in Kansas (4.9 percentage points) and the 
largest percentage-point decrease occurring in Arizona 
(9.6 percentage points). Over the two most recent school 
years, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the percentage of ELL 
students in public schools decreased in 19 states, with 


the largest decrease occurring in Hawaii (4.6 percentage 
points). In contrast, 30 states and the District of 
Columbia experienced an increase in the percentage 
of ELL students, but only two states (Illinois and 
Washington) and the District of Columbia experienced 
an increase of more than 1.0 percentage point, with the 
largest increase occurring in the District of Columbia 
(1.9 percentage points). 


Figure 2. Percentage of public school students who ore English language learners, by locale: School year 2012-13 
Percent 



City Suburban Town Rural 

Locale 


' Located inside an urbanized area and inside a principai city with a popuiation of at ieast 250,000. 

^ Located inside an urbanized area and inside a principai city with a popuiation of at ieast 100,000 but iess than 250,000. 

^ Located inside an urbanized area and inside a principai city with a popuiation iess than 1 00,000. 

“ Located inside an urbanized area and outside a principai city with a popuiation of 250,000 or more. 

® Located inside an urbanized area and outside a principai city with a popuiation of at ieast 100,000 but iess than 250,000. 

‘ Located inside an urbanized area and outside a principai city with a popuiation iess than 100,000. 

' Located inside an urban ciuster that is 1 0 miies or iess from an urbanized area. 

“ Located inside an urban ciuster that is more than 1 0 but iess than or equal to 35 miles from an urbanized area. 

’ Located inside an urban ciuster that is more than 35 miies from an urbanized area. 

Located outside any urbanized area or urban cluster but 5 miles or less from an urbanized area or 2.5 miles or less from an urban cluster. 

" Located outside any urbanized area or urban cluster and more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, or more than 2.5 
miies but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster. 

Located outside any urbanized area or urban cluster, more than 25 miles from an urbanized area, and more than 1 0 miles from an urban cluster. 

NOTE: Locales are based on an address's proximity to an urbanized area. Data in this figure are based on the locales of school districts rather than the 
locales of the schools themselves. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency Universe Survey," 
201 2-13. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 214.40. 


In 2012-13, the percentage of students in ELL programs 
was generally higher for school districts in more 
urbanized areas than for those in less urbanized areas. 

For example, ELL students in cities made up an average 
of 14.0 percent of total public school enrollment, ranging 
from 9.4 percent in small cities to 16.7 percent in large 
cities. In suburban areas, ELL students constituted 
an average of 8.5 percent of public school enrollment, 
ranging from 5.9 percent in midsize suburban areas to 
8.9 percent in large suburban areas. Towns and rural 


areas are subdivided into fringe, distant, and remote areas 
according to their proximity to urban centers, with fringe 
being the closest to an urban center and remote being 
the farthest from one. In towns, ELL students made up 
an average of 6.0 percent of public school enrollment, 
ranging from 5.9 percent in distant areas to 6.2 percent 
in remote areas. In rural areas, ELL students made up 
an average of 3.5 percent of public student enrollment, 
ranging from 2.2 percent in distant areas to 4.4 percent in 
fringe areas. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 85 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Endnotes: 

* Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., KewalRamani, A., 
Zhang, J., Kristapovich, R, and Manning, E. (2012). 
Higher Education: Gaps in Access and Persistence Study 
(NCES 2012-046). U.S. Department of Education. 
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
tables 204.20 and 214.40 

Related indicators: Reading Performance (indicator 23), 
Mathematics Performance (indicator 24) 


Glossary: English language learner (ELL), Geographic 
region, Public school or institution 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


86 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Indicator 13 

Children and Youth With Disabilities 

The number of children and youth ages 3-21 receiving special education services 
was 6.4 million, or about 13 percent of all public school students, in 2012-13. 

Some 35 percent of students receiving special education services had specific 
learning disabilities. 


Enacted in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA), formerly known as the Education 
for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), mandates 
the provision of a free and appropriate public school 
education for eligible children and youth ages 3-21. 
Eligible children and youth are those identified by a team 
of professionals as having a disability that adversely affects 
academic performance and as being in need of special 
education and related services. Data collection activities to 
monitor compliance with IDEA began in 1976. 

From school years 1990—91 through 2004—05, the number 
of children and youth ages 3-21 who received special 


education services increased, as did the percentage of total 
public school enrollment they constituted: 4.7 million 
children and youth ages 3-21, or about 11 percent of 
public school enrollment, received special education 
services in 1990-91, compared with 6.7 million, or about 
14 percent, in 2004-05. Both the number and percentage 
of children and youth served under IDEA declined from 
2004—05 through 2011—12, with some evidence of leveling 
off in 2012—13. By 2012—13, the number of children and 
youth receiving services under IDEA had declined to 
6.4 million, corresponding to 13 percent of total public 
school enrollment. 


Figure 1. Percentage distribution ot children ages 3-21 served under the Individuais with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA), Port B, by disability type: Schooi year 2012-13 


Disability type 



Percent 


NOTE: Deaf-blindness, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairments are not shown beoause they each account for less than 0.5 peroent of children served 
under IDEA. Due to oategories not shown, detail does not sum to total. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved October 3, 
201 4, from httDs://inventorv.data.aov/dataset/8715a3e8-bf48-4eef-9deb-fd9bb76a196e/resource/a68a23f3-3981-47db-ac75-98a167b65259 . See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2014, table 204.30. 


In school year 2012-13, a higher percentage of children 
and youth ages 3-21 received special education services 
under IDEA for specific learning disabilities than for any 
other type of disability. A specific learning disability is a 
disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes 
involved in understanding or using language, spoken or 
written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to 

For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to 


listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical 
calculations. In 2012-13, some 35 percent of all children 
and youth receiving special education services had specific 
learning disabilities, 21 percent had speech or language 
impairments, and 12 percent had other health impairments 
(including having limited strength, vitality, or alertness 
due to chronic or acute health problems such as a heart 


Sources. 


88 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


condition, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, 
sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, 
leukemia, or diabetes). Children and youth with autism, 
intellectual disabilities, developmental delays, or emotional 
disturbances each accounted for between 6 and 8 percent 


of students served under IDEA. Children and youth with 
multiple disabilities, hearing impairments, orthopedic 
impairments, visual impairments, traumatic brain injuries, 
or deaf-blindness each accounted for 2 percent or less of 
those served under IDEA. 


Figure 2. Percentage of students ages 6-21 served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, 
placed in a regular public school environment, by amount of time spent inside general classes: Selected 
school years 1990-91 through 2012-13 



1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

1990 - 1995 - 2000 - 2005 - 2010 - 2012 - 

91 96 01 06 11 13 


School year 


SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Speciai Education Programs, individuais with Disabiiities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved October 3, 
2014, from https://inventorv.data.aov/dataset/8715a3e8-bf48-4eef-9deb-fd9bb76a196e/resource/a68a23f3-3981-47db-ac75-98a167b65259 . See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2014, table 204.60. 


About 95 percent of school-age children and youth ages 
6-21 who were served under IDEA in 2012-13 were 
enrolled in regular schools. Some 3 percent of children 
and youth ages 6-21 who were served under IDEA were 
enrolled in separate schools (public or private) for students 
with disabilities; 1 percent were placed by their parents 
in regular private schools; and less than 1 percent each 
were in separate residential facilities (public or private), 
homebound or in hospitals, or in correctional facilities. 
Among all children and youth ages 6-21 who were served 
under IDEA, the percentage who spent most of the 
school day (i.e., 80 percent or more of time) in general 
classes in regular schools increased from 33 percent in 
1990-91 to 61 percent in 2012-13. In contrast, during 
the same period, the percentage of those who spent 40 to 
79 percent of the school day in general classes declined 


from 36 to 20 percent, and the percentage of those who 
spent less than 40 percent of time inside general classes 
also declined from 25 to 14 percent. In 2012-13, the 
percentage of students served under IDEA who spent 
most of the school day in general classes was highest 
for students with speech or language impairments 
(87 percent). Approximately two-thirds of students with 
specific learning disabilities (67 percent), students with 
visual impairments (64 percent), students with other 
health impairments (64 percent), and students with 
developmental delays (62 percent) spent most of the 
school day in general classes. In contrast, 16 percent of 
students with intellectual disabilities and 13 percent of 
students with multiple disabilities spent most of the school 
day in general classes. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 89 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Elementary/Secondary Enrollment 


Figure 3. Percentage of children 3-21 years old served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 



Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific Islander American Two or more 

Indian/Alaska races 


Race/ethnicity 


Native 


NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved October 3, 
201 4, from https://inventorv.data.aov/dataset/8715a3e8-bf48-4eef~9deb-fd9bb76a196e/resource/a68a23f3-3981-47db-ac75-98a167b65259: and National 
Center for Education Statistios, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education," 201 2-1 3. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2014, table 204.30 and table 204.50. 


In school year 2012-13, the number of children and youth 
ages 3-21 who were served under IDEA as a percentage 
of total enrollment in public schools differed by race/ 
ethnicity. The percentage of children and youth served 
under IDEA was highest for American Indians/Alaska 
Natives (16 percent), followed by Blacks (15 percent). 
Whites (13 percent), children and youth of Two or more 
races (13 percent), Hispanics (12 percent). Pacific Islanders 
(11 percent), and Asians (6 percent). In most racial/ethnic 
groups, the percentage of children and youth receiving 
services for specific learning disabilities combined with 
the percentage receiving services for speech or language 
impairments accounted for over 50 percent of children 
and youth served under IDEA. 

The percentage distribution of children and youth ages 
3-21 who received various types of special education 


services in 2012-13 differed by race/ethnicity. For 
example, the percentage of students with disabilities 
served under IDEA for specific learning disabilities was 
lower among Asian children (23 percent) than among 
children overall (35 percent). However, the percentage 
of students with disabilities who received services under 
IDEA for autism was higher among Asian children 
(18 percent) than among children overall (8 percent). 
Additionally, students who received services for emotional 
disturbances accounted for 8 percent of Black children 
served under IDEA, compared with 6 percent of children 
overall. Among children and youth who received services, 
the percentages of Pacific Islanders (9 percent), American 
Indians/Alaska Natives (9 percent), and students of Two 
or more races (14 percent) who received services for 
developmental delays under IDEA were higher than the 
percentage of children overall (6 percent). 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
204.30, 204.50, and 204.60 


Glossary: Disability, Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA), Regular school 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


90 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Indicator 14 

Undergraduate Enrollment 

Total undergraduate enrollment In degree-granting postseoondary Institutions 
was 17.5 million students In fall 2013, an Inorease of 46 peroenf from 1990, when If 
was 12.0 million students. By 2024, total undergraduate enrollment is projeoted to 
inorease to 19.6 million students. 


In fall 2013, total undergraduate enrollment in degree- 
granting postsecondary institutions was 17.5 million 
students, an increase of 46 percent from 1990, when 
enrollment was 12.0 million students. While total 
undergraduate enrollment increased by 37 percent 


between 2000 and 2010, enrollment in 2013 was 
3 percent lower than in 2010. Undergraduate enrollment 
is projected to increase from 17.5 million to 19.6 million 
students between 2013 and 2024. 


Figure 1. Actual and projected undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 
by sex: Fall 1990-2024 



1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 2015 2020 2024 

Year 

NOTE: Data include unclassified undergraduate students. Data through 1 995 are for institutions of higher education, whiie later data are for degree-granting 
institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate inTitle IV federal financial aid programs. The degree-granting 
classification is very similar to the earlier higher eduoation classification, but it includes more 2-year colleges and excludes a fe\A/ higher education institutions 
that did not grant degrees. Projections are based on data through 201 3. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), "Fall Enrollment 
Survey" (IPEDS-EF:90-99); IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2014, Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Stafistios 2074, table 303.70. 


In fall 2013, female students made up 56 percent of 
total undergraduate enrollment at 9.8 million and male 
students made up 44 percent at 7.7 million. Enrollment 
for both groups increased between 1990 and 2013, but 
most of the increases occurred between 2000 and 2010, 
when female enrollment increased by 39 percent and 
male enrollment increased by 36 percent. However, both 


female and male enrollments were lower (4 percent and 
2 percent, respectively) in 2013 than in 2010. Between 
2013 and 2024, female enrollment is projected to increase 
by 15 percent (from 9.8 million to 11.3 million students), 
and male enrollment is projected to increase by 9 percent 
(from 7.7 million to 8.3 million students). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


92 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Figure 2. Undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity: Fall 1990-2013 
Enrollment (in millions) 



Year 

NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Prior to 201 0, separate data on Asians were not available. Data through 1 995 are for institutions 
of higher education, while later data are for degree-granting institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate 
in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The degree-granting classification is very similar to the earlier higher education classification, but it includes more 
2-year colleges and excludes a few higher educaticn institutions that did not grant degrees. Data for 1 999 were imputed using alternative procedures. Some 
data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), "Fall Enrollment 
Survey" (IPEDS-EF:90-99); IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 201 4, Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 306.1 0. 


Of the 17.5 million undergraduate students in fall 
2013, some 9.9 million were White, 2.9 million were 
Hispanic, 2.5 million were Black, 1.0 million were Asian, 
0.1 million were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 
0.1 million were Pacific Islander. Between 1990 and 
2013, Hispanic enrollment nearly quadrupled (from 
0.7 million to 2.9 million students) and Black enrollment 


more than doubled (from 1.1 million to 2.5 million 
students), while White enrollment increased 7 percent 
(from 9.3 million to 9.9 million students). However, the 
number of undergraduate students was lower in 2013 
than in 2010 for most groups; the exception was Hispanic 
students, whose enrollment increased by 13 percent 
during this period. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 93 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Figure 3. Actual and projected undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 
by attendance status: Fall 1990-2024 



1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 2015 2020 2024 

Year 

NOTE: Data include unclassified undergraduate students. Data thrcugh 1 995 are for institutions ot higher education, whiie later data are tor degree-granting 
institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The degree-granting 
classification is very similar to the earlier higher education classification, but it includes more 2-year colleges and excludes a fe\A/ higher education institutions 
that did not grant degrees. Projections are based on data through 201 3. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), "Fall Enrollment 
Survey" (IPEDS-EF:90-99); IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 201 4, Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 303.70. 


In fall 2013, there were 10.9 million full-time and 
6.5 million part-time undergraduate students. Enrollment 
for both full- and part-time students has generally 
increased since 1990, particularly between 2000 and 
2010, when full-time enrollment increased by 45 percent 
and part-time enrollment increased by 27 percent. 
Full-time enrollment was 5 percent lower in 2013 than 


in 2010, and part-time enrollment was 1 percent lower 
in 2013 than in 2010. Between 2013 and 2024, however, 
full-time enrollment is projected to increase by 13 percent 
(from 10.9 million to 12.3 million students) and part- 
time enrollment is projected to increase by 12 percent 
(from 6.5 million to 7.3 million students). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


94 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Figure 4. Undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by controi of institution: 
Fail 1990-2013 



1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 


Year 

NOTE: Data include unclassified undergraduate students. Data through 1 995 are for institutions of higher education, whiie later data are for degree-granting 
institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The degree-granting 
classification is very similar to the earlier higher education classification, but it includes more 2-year colleges and exoludes a fe\A/ higher education institutions 
that did not grant degrees. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment 
Survey" (IPEDS-EF;90-99); and IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 201 4, Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 303.70. 


The increase in undergraduate enrollment from fall 1990 
to fall 2013 occurred at a faster rate at private for-profit 
institutions (565 percent) than at public institutions 
(37 percent) and private nonprofit institutions 
(35 percent), although in 1990 undergraduate enrollment 
at private for-profit institutions was relatively small, 
at 0.2 million students, compared with 9.7 million at 
public institutions and 2.0 million at private nonprofit 
institutions. Most of this growth at private for-profit 
institutions occurred between 2000 and 2010, when 
enrollment quadrupled (from 0.4 million to 1.7 million 


students); in comparison, enrollments increased by 
30 percent at public institutions (from 10.5 million 
to 13.7 million students) and by 20 percent at private 
nonprofit institutions (from 2.2 million to 2.7 million 
students) during this period. More recently, the pattern of 
enrollment at private for-profit institutions has changed. 
Enrollment at private for-profit institutions in 2013 
(1.4 million students) was 21 percent lower than in 2010; 
enrollment at public institutions (13.3 million students) 
was 3 percent lower, while enrollment at private nonprofit 
institutions (2.8 million students) was 4 percent higher. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 95 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Figure 5. Actual and projected undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 
by level ot institution: Fall 1990-2024 



1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 2015 2020 2024 

Year 


NOTE: Data include unclassified undergraduate students. Data through 1 995 are for institutions of higher education, whiie later data are for degree-granting 
institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The degree-granting 
classification is very similar to the earlier higher education classification, but it includes more 2-year colleges and exoludes a few higher education institutions 
that did not grant degrees. Projections are based on data through 201 3. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), "Fall Enrollment 
Survey" (IPEDS-EF:90-99); IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2014, Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 303.70. 


In fall 2013, the 10.5 million students at 4-year 
institutions made up 60 percent of undergraduate 
enrollment; the remaining 40 percent consisted of 
the 7.0 million students who were enrolled at 2-year 
institutions. Between 2000 and 2010, private for-profit 
4-year institutions had the highest percentage increase in 
undergraduate enrollment among all types of institutions 
(514 percent), and private for-profit 2-year institutions 
had the second largest increase (125 percent). Enrollment 
increased by 34 percent at public 4-year institutions, by 
27 percent at public 2-year institutions, and by 22 percent 
at private nonprofit 4-year institutions. In contrast, 
enrollment at private nonprofit 2-year institutions 


decreased by 44 percent during the same period. At 4-year 
institutions, enrollments increased by 4 percent between 
2010 and 2013 at both public and private nonprofit 
institutions, while enrollment at private for-profit 
institutions decreased by 18 percent. Enrollments at 2-year 
institutions were 28 percent lower at private for-profit 
institutions, 8 percent lower at public institutions, and 
1 percent lower at private nonprofit institutions in 2013 
than in 2010. Between 2013 and 2024, enrollment at 
2-year institutions is projected to increase by 15 percent, 
to 8.0 million students, while enrollment at 4-year 
institutions is projected to increase by 11 percent, to 
11.6 million students. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


96 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Figure 6. Percentage of undergraduate students at degree-granting postsecondary institutions who participated 



Public Public Private nonprofit Private nonprofit Private for-profit Private for-profit 

2-year 4-year 2-year 4-year 2-year 4-year 


Control and level of institution 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Distance education uses 
one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor as well as to support regular and substantive interaction 
between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously. Technologies used for instruction may include the following: Internet; one-way and 
two-way transmissions through open broadcasts, closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communication devices; 
audio conferencing; and videocassettes, DVDs, and CD-ROMs, only if the videocassettes, DVDs, and CD-ROMs are used in a course in conjunction with the 
technologies listed above. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 201 4, 
Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 31 1 .15. 

Distance education* courses and programs provide 
students with flexible learning opportunities. In fall 2013, 
about 4.6 million undergraduate students participated in 
distance education, with 2.0 million students (11 percent 
of total postbaccalaureate enrollment) exclusively taking 
distance education courses. Of the 2.0 million 
undergraduate students who exclusively took distance 
education courses, 1.1 million students (6 percent of 
total postbaccalaureate enrollment) were enrolled in 
programs located in the same state in which they resided, 
and 0.8 million (4 percent of total postbaccalaureate 
enrollment) were enrolled in a different state. 


The percentage of undergraduate students participating 
exclusively in distance education programs differed by 
institutional control. In fall 2013, a higher percentage 
of students at private for-profit institutions (46 percent) 
exclusively took distance education courses than did 
students at private nonprofit institutions (1 1 percent) 
and public institutions (8 percent). In particular, a 
higher percentage of students at private for-profit 4-year 
institutions exclusively took distance education courses 
(58 percent) than did students at any other control and 
level of institution (percentages at these institutions ranged 
from 1 1 percent at private nonprofit 4-year institutions to 
2 percent at private nonprofit 2-year institutions). 


Endnotes: 

* Distance education uses one or more technologies to 
deliver instruction to students who are separated from the 
instructor as well as to support regular and substantive 
interaction between the students and the instructor 
synchronously or asynchronously. Technologies used for 
instruction may include the following: Internet; one-way 


and two-way transmissions through open broadcasts, 
closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber 
optics, satellite, or wireless communication devices; audio 
conferencing; and videocassettes, DVDs, and CD-ROMs, 
only if the videocassettes, DVDs, and CD-ROMs are used in 
a course in conjunction with the technologies listed above. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
303.70, 306.10, and 311.15 

Related indicators: Enrollment Trends by Age (indicator 6), 
Postbaccalaureate Enrollment (indicator 15), Characteristics of 
Postsecondary Institutions (indicator 31), Community Colleges 
[The Condition of Education 2008 Special Analysis\ 


Glossary: Eor-profit institution, Full-time enrollment, Eligher 
education institutions, Nonprofit institution, Part-time 
enrollment. Private institution, Public school or institution, 
Undergraduate students 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 97 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Indicator 15 

Postbaccalaureate Enrollment 

Total enrollment In postbaooalaureate degree programs was 2.9 million students 
In fall 2013. Between 2013 and 2024, postbaooalaureate enrollment Is projeoted to 
inorease by 20 peroent, to 3.5 million students. 


In fall 2013, some 2.9 million students were enrolled in 
postbaccalaureate degree programs. Postbaccalaureate 
degree programs include master’s and doctoral programs, 
as well as programs such as law, medicine, and dentistry. 
Postbaccalaureate enrollment increased at a faster rate 
between 2000 and 2010 (36 percent) than between 


1990 and 2000 (16 percent). Total enrollment in 
postbaccalaureate degree programs decreased by 1 percent 
between 2010 and 2013. Between 2013 and 2024, 
postbaccalaureate enrollment is projected to increase by 
20 percent, to 3.5 million students. 


Figure 1. Actual and projected postbaccalaureate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 
by sex: Fall 1990-2024 



1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 2015 2020 2024 

Year 


NOTE: Postbaccalaureate degree programs include master's and doctoral programs, as well as programs such as law, medicine, and dentistry. Data include 
unclassified graduate students. Data through 1 995 are for Institutions ot higher education, while later data are for degree-granting institutions. Degree- 
granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The degree-granting classification is very 
similar to the earlier higher education classification, but it includes more 2-year colleges and excludes a few higher education institutions that did not grant 
degrees. Projections are based on data through 201 3. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),’'Fall Enrollment 
Survey" (IPEDS-EF:90-99); IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2014, Enrollment component; and Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions Projection Model, 1980 
through 2024. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 303.80. 


In fall 2013, some 1.7 million postbaccalaureate students 
were female (59 percent) and 1.2 million were male 
(41 percent). Female enrollment has generally increased 
at a faster rate than male enrollment since 1990. For 
example, between 2000 and 2010, female enrollment 
increased by 42 percent, while male enrollment increased 
by 28 percent. Between 2010 and 2013, however. 


postbaccalaureate enrollment decreased by 2 percent for 
female students and by 1 percent for male students. Male 
enrollment is projected to increase by 25 percent, from 
1.2 million students in 2013 to 1.5 million in 2024, while 
female enrollment is projected to increase by 17 percent, 
from 1.7 million to 2.0 million students. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


98 The Condition of Education 20 1 5 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Figure 2. Postbaccalaureate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity: 
Fall 1990-2013 

Enrollment (in millions) 



Year 


NOTE: Postbaccalaureate degree programs include master's and doctoral programs, as well as programs such as law, medicine, and dentistry. Race 
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Prior to 2010, separate data on Asians were not available. Data through 1995 are for institutions of higher 
education, while later data are for degree-granting institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV 
federal financial aid programs. The degree-granting classification is very similar to the earlier higher education classification, but it includes more 2-year 
colleges and excludes a few higher education institutions that did not grant degrees. Data for 1 999 were imputed using alternative procedures. Some data 
have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment 
Survey" (IPEDS-EF:90-99); IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 201 4, Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 306.1 0. 


Of the 2.9 million postbaccalaureate students enrolled 
in fall 2013, some 1.7 million were White, 367,000 were 
Black, 221,000 were Hispanic, 188,000 were Asian, 

15.000 were American Indian/Alaska Native, and 7,000 
were Pacific Islander. Between 1990 and 2013, both Black 
and Hispanic enrollments nearly quadrupled, with Black 
enrollment increasing from 100,000 to 367,000 students 
and Hispanic enrollment increasing from 58,000 to 

221.000 students. American Indian/Alaska Native 


enrollment more than doubled over this period from 

7,000 to 15,000 students, while White enrollment 
increased by 17 percent, from 1.4 million to 1.7 million 
students. Most recently, the number of postbaccalaureate 
students was higher in 2013 than in 2010 for most groups; 
the exceptions were White and American Indian/Alaska 
Native students, whose enrollment decreased during 
this period. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 99 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Figure 3. Actual and projected postbaccalaureate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 
by attendance status: Fall 1990-2024 



1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 2015 2020 2024 

Year 


NOTE: Postbaccaiaureate degree programs include master's and doctoral programs, as well as programs such as law, medicine, and dentistry. Data include 
unclassified graduate students. Data through 1 995 are for institutions of higher education, while later data are for degree-granting institutions. Degree- 
granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The degree-granting classification is very 
similar to the earlier higher education classification, but it includes more 2-year colleges and excludes a few higher education institutions that did not grant 
degrees. Projections are based on data through 2013. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),'Fall Enrollment 
Survey" (IPEDS-EF:90-99): IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2014, Enrollment component: and Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions Projection Model, 1980 
through 2024. See Digest of Education Statistios 2014, table 303.80. 


In fall 2013, there were 1.7 million full-time 
postbaccaiaureate students and 1.2 million part-time 
students. Since 1990, full-time enrollment has increased 
at a faster rate (96 percent) than part-time enrollment 
(22 percent). Between 2000 and 2010, full-time 
enrollment increased by 50 percent, while part-time 


enrollment increased by 22 percent. Most recently, 
full-time enrollment was 2 percent higher in 2013 than 
in 2010, but part-time enrollment decreased by 5 percent. 
Between 2013 and 2024, full-time and part-time 
enrollments are projected to increase at about the same 
rate (21 and 20 percent, respectively). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


100 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Figure 4. Postbaccalaureate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by control of institution: 
Fall 1990-2013 

Enrollment (in millions) 



Year 

NOTE: Postbaccaiaureate degree programs include master's and doctoral programs, as well as programs such as law, medicine, and dentistry. Data Include 
unclassified graduate students. Data through 1 995 are for Institutions ot higher education, while later data are for degree-granting institutions. Degree- 
granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The degree-granting classification is very 
similar to the earlier higher education classification, but it includes more 2-year colleges and excludes a few higher education institutions that did not grant 
degrees. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),"Fall Enrollment 


Survey (IPEDS-EF:90-99); and IPEDS Spring 2001 through Spring 2014, Enrollm( 
1980 through 2024. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 303.80. 

From fall 1990 to fall 2013, enrollment has grown at a 
faster rate at private for-profit institutions (an increase of 
3,666 percent) than at private nonprofit institutions (an 
increase of 70 percent) and public institutions (an increase 
of 23 percent); however, in 1990, the enrollment at private 
for-profit institutions was relatively small (8,000 students) 
compared with the enrollments at private nonprofit 
institutions (0.7 million students) and public institutions 
(1.1 million students). 


component; and Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions Projection Model, 

Between 2000 and 2010, enrollment at private for-profit 
institutions increased by 528 percent, while enrollment 
increased by 34 percent at private nonprofit institutions 
and by 19 percent at public institutions. More recently, 
the pattern of growth in postbaccaiaureate enrollments 
at private for-profit and public institutions has changed. 
Enrollment at private for-profit institutions was 4 percent 
lower in 2013 than in 2010 and enrollment at public 
institutions was 3 percent lower, while enrollment at 
private nonprofit institutions was 1 percent higher. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 101 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Figure 5. Percentage of postbaccalaureate students enrolled In degree-granting postsecondary Institutions, 
by participation in distance education and control of Institution: Fall 2013 



Participation in distance education 

^ Total □ Public □ Private nonprofit □ Private for-profit 

NOTE: Postbaccalaureate degree programs include master's and doctoral programs, as well as programs such as law, medicine, and dentistry. Distance 
education uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor as well as to support regular and 
substantive interaction between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously. Technologies used for instruction may include the following: 
Internet; one-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcasts, closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless 
communication devices; audio conferencing; and videocassettes, DVDs, and CD-ROMs, only if the videocassettes. DVDs, and CD-ROMs are used in a course 
in conjunction with the technologies listed above. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial 
aid programs. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2014, 
Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 311.15. 


Distance education* courses and programs provide flexible 
learning opportunities to postbaccalaureate students. 

In fall 2013, some 31 percent of total postbaccalaureate 
enrollment (895,000 students) participated in distance 
education, with 23 percent of total postbaccalaureate 
enrollment (677,000 students) exclusively taking distance 
education courses. Of the students who exclusively 
took distance education courses, 273,000 students 
(or 9 percent of total postbaccalaureate enrollment) were 
enrolled in programs located in the same state in which 
they resided, and 362,000 students (or 12 percent of 
total postbaccalaureate enrollment) were enrolled in a 
different state. 


The percentage of students participating exclusively in 
distance education programs differed by institutional 
control. In fall 2013, the percentage of students who 
exclusively took distance education courses was higher for 
those enrolled at private for-profit institutions (79 percent) 
than for those at private nonprofit (19 percent) and public 
institutions (16 percent). The percentage of students who 
did not take any distance education courses was higher for 
those enrolled at public and private nonprofit institutions 
(75 percent for each) than for those at private for-profit 
institutions (17 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


102 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 2/Participation in Education 
Section: Postsecondary Enrollment 


Endnotes: 

* Distance education uses one or more technologies to 
deliver instruction to students who are separated from the 
instructor as well as to support regular and substantive 
interaction between the students and the instructor 
synchronously or asynchronously. Technologies used for 
instruction may include the following: Internet; one-way 
and two-way transmissions through open broadcasts, 

closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber 
optics, satellite, or wireless communication devices; audio 
conferencing; and videocassettes, DVDs, and CD-ROMs, 
only if the videocassettes, DVDs, and CD-ROMs are 
used in a course in conjunction with the technologies 
listed above. 

Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
303.80, 306.10, and 311.15 

Related indicators: Enrollment Trends by Age (indicator 6), 
Undergraduate Enrollment (indicator 14), Characteristics of 
Postsecondary Institutions (indicator 31) 

Glossary: For-profit institution. Full-time enrollment. 
Nonprofit institution. Part-time enrollment. Postbaccalaureate 
enrollment. Private institution. Public school or institution 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Participation in Education 103 


The indicators in this chapter of The Condition of Education measure aspects of elementary and secondary education in 
the United States. The indicators examine school characteristics and climate; principals, teachers and staff; elementary 
and secondary financial resources; student assessments; and other measures of the progress students make as they 
move through the education system, such as graduation rates. 


In this chapter, particular attention is given to how various subgroups in the population proceed through school and 
attain different levels of education, as well as the factors that are associated with their progress along the way. The 
indicators on student achievement illustrate how students are performing on assessments in reading, mathematics, 
science, and other academic subject areas. Other indicators describe aspects of the context of learning in elementary and 
secondary schools. 

This chapter’s indicators, as well as additional indicators on elementary and secondary education, are available at 
The Condition of Education weh?,ite-. http:/ / nces.ed.gov/ programs /coe . 


104 The Condition of Education 2015 



Chapter 3 

Elementary and Secondary Education 


School Characteristics and Climate 

Indicator 16. Characteristics of Traditional Public and Public Charter Schools 106 

Indicator 1 7. Concentration of Public School Students Eligible for Free or 

Reduced-Price Lunch 110 

Indicator 18. Rotes of School Crime 112 

Indicator 19. Teachers and Pupil/Teacher Ratios 118 

Finance 

Indicator 20. Public School Revenue Sources 120 

Indicator 21. Public School Expenditures 124 

Indicator 22. Education Expenditures by Country 128 

Assessments 

Indicator 23. Reading Performance 132 

Indicator 24. Mathematics Performance 140 

Indicator 25. Reading and Mathematics Score Trends 148 

Indicator 26. International Assessments 152 

Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 

Indicator 27. High School Coursetaking 170 

Indicator 28. Public High School Graduation Rates 174 

Indicator 29. Status Dropout Rotes 178 

Transition to College 

Indicator 30. Immediate College Enrollment Rate 184 


Elementary and Secondary Education 105 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Indicator 16 

Characteristics of Traditional Public and Public 
Charter Schools 

In school year 2012-13, the majority of charter schools (57 percent) were in cities, 
compared with 25 percent of traditional public schools. In contrast, 7 7 percent of 
charter schools were in rural areas, compared with 29 percent of traditional public 
schoois. 


In school year 2012-13, there were 98,454 public schools 
in the United States, including 92,375 traditional public 
schools and 6,079 charter schools. The total number of 
schools was greater in 2012-13 than in 1999-2000, when 
there was a total of 92,012 public schools, with 90,488 
traditional public schools and 1,524 charter schools. 

Over two-thirds of traditional public schools (69 percent) 


were elementary schools in 2012-13, versus 56 percent 
of charter schools. By contrast, 20 percent of charter 
schools in 2012—13 were combined schools, meaning 
that they began with grade 6 or below and extended to 
grade 9 or above, compared with 6 percent of traditional 
public schools. 


Figure 1. Percentage distribution of traditional public schools and charter schools, by enrollment size: 
School years 1999-2000 and 2012-13 


Percent 


100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 



7 

— 




31 90 3 

29 27_ 28 H 

IXJ 

3 34 

10 9 1 

m 1 

24 

18 

jk LJ 


Less than 300 to 500 to 1 .000 or Less than 300 to 500 to 1 .000 or 

300 499 999 more 300 499 999 more 


students students students students students students students students 


Traditional public schools Charter schools 

I 1999-2000 □ 2012-13 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department ot Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe 
Survey," 1 999-2000 and 201 2-1 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 21 6.30. 


In terms of enrollment, charter schools tend to be smaller 
than traditional public schools. In 2012-13, some 
54 percent of charter schools were small (enrollment of 
fewer than 300 students), compared with 29 percent 
of traditional public schools. However, the percentage 
of small charter schools has decreased over time, from 


77 percent in 1999-2000 to 54 percent in 2012-13. 

Over the same period, the percentage of charter schools 
that were large (1,000 or more students) increased from 
2 to 4 percent. In 2012-13, about 9 percent of traditional 
public schools were large. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


106 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Figure 2. Percentage of traditional public schools and charter schools, by racial/ethnic ooncentration: 
School years 1999-2000 and 2012-13 


Percent 

1 00 r 


90 



More than 

More than 

More than 

More than 

More than 

More than 

50 percent 

50 percent 

50 percent 

50 percent 

50 percent 

50 percent 

White 

Black 

Hispanic 

White 

Black 

Hispanic 


Traditional public schools Charter schools 

I 1999-2000 □ 2012-13 

SOURCE; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary Schooi Universe 
Survey," 1 999-2000 and 201 2-1 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014 tabie 21 6.30. 


In 2012-13, a majority (60 percent) of traditional public 
schools had enrollments in which more than half of the 
students were White, while 9 percent had enrollments 
in which more than half of the students were Black and 
15 percent had enrollments in which more than half of 
the students were Hispanic. In comparison, 37 percent 
of charter schools had more than 50 percent White 
enrollment, 25 percent had more than 50 percent Black 
enrollment, and 23 percent had more than 50 percent 
Hispanic enrollment. For both traditional public and 
charter schools, the percentages of schools that had 


more than 50 percent White enrollment or more than 
50 percent Black enrollment were lower in 2012—13 than 
in 1999-2000, while the percentages of schools that had 
more than 50 percent Hispanic enrollment were higher 
in 2012—13 than in 1999—2000. These shifts reflect, in 
part, changes in student demographics overall. Between 
2000 and 2013, the percentage of children ages 5 to 17 
who were White decreased from 62 to 53 percent, 
the percentage who were Black decreased from 
15 to 14 percent, and the percentage who were Hispanic 
increased from 16 to 24 percent. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 107 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 

Figure 3. Percentage of traditional public schools and charter schools, by percentage of students eligible for free or 
reduced-price lunch: School year 2012-13 

Percent 



School status 

I 0 to 25.0 percent Q 25.1 to 50.0 percent Q 50.1 to 75.0 percent Q More than 75.0 percent 
NOTE: The category ‘missing/school does not partioipate" is not included in this figure. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department cf Education, National Center for Educafion Stafistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), 'Public Elementary/Secondary SchocI Universe 
Survey," 2012-1 3. See Digest of Educafion Statistics 2014, fable 216.30. 

High-poverty schools, in which more than 75 percent 12 percent in 1999—2000. In 2012—13, some 23 percent 

of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch of traditional public schools were high poverty, compared 

under the National School Lunch Program, accounted for with 37 percent of charter schools. 

24 percent of all public schools in 2012-13 compared with 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


108 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Figure 4. Percentage distribution ot troditionai pubiic schools and charter schoois, by schooi iocale and region: 
School year 2012-13 


Percent 



I Traditional public schools Q Charter schools 
NOTE: The category "missing/school does not participate" is not included in this figure. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD). "Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe 
Survey." 201 2-1 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 21 6.30. 


In 2012-13, some 29 percent of traditional public schools 
were in rural areas, compared with 11 percent of charter 
schools. In contrast, 25 percent of traditional public 
schools and the majority of charter schools (57 percent) 
were in cities. 

Regionally, the highest percentage of traditional public 
schools in 2012-13 was in the South (35 percent). 


followed by the Midwest (26 percent), the West 
(23 percent), and the Northeast (16 percent). Charter 
schools followed a different pattern. In 2012-13, 
some 31 percent of charter schools were in the South, 
22 percent were in the Midwest, 37 percent were in the 
West, and 10 percent were in the Northeast. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
101.20 and 216.30 

Related indicators: Public School Enrollment (indicator 8), 
Charter School Enrollment (indicator 9), Radal/Ethnic 
Enrollment in Public Schools (indicator 11), Concentration 
of Public School Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 
Lunch (indicator 17) 


Glossary: Charter school. Combined school. Elementary 
school, Free or reduced-price lunch, National School Lunch 
Program, Private school. Secondary school. Traditional 
public school 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 109 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Indicator 17 

Concentration of Public School Students Eligible for 
Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 

In school year 2012-13, higher percentages of Black, Hispanic, and American 
Indian/Alaska Native students attended high-poverty public schools than did 
Pacific Islander students, students of Two or more races, Asian students, and White 
students (ordered by descending percentages). 


The percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- 
price lunch (FRPL) under the National School Lunch 
Program provides a proxy measure for the concentration 
of low-income students within a school. Children from 
families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the 
poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those from 
families with incomes that are between 130 percent and 
185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced- 
price meals. In this indicator, public schools (including 
both traditional and charter) are divided into categories 
by FRPL eligibility. High-poverty schools are defined 


as public schools where more than 75.0 percent of the 
students are eligible for FRPL, and mid-high poverty 
schools are those schools where 50.1 to 75.0 percent of 
the students are eligible for FRPL. Low-poverty schools 
are defined as public schools where 25.0 percent or less of 
the students are eligible for FRPL, and mid-low poverty 
schools are those schools where 25.1 to 50.0 percent of the 
students are eligible for FRPL. In school year 2012-13, 
some 21 percent of public school students attended 
low-poverty schools, and 24 percent of public school 
students attended high-poverty schools. 


Figure 1. Percentage of public schooi students in iow-poverty and high-poverty schools, by race/ethnicity: 
School year 2012-13 

Percent 



Low poverty High poverty 

School poverty level 


Total White Q Black Q Hispanic Q Asian l^lQ'^cler D Alaskc^Native''^'^^ | | Two or more races 

NOTE: High-poverty schools are defined os public schools where more than 75.0 percent ot the students are eligible far free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL), 
and low-poverty schools are detined as public schools where 25.0 percent or less ot the students are eligible far FRPL. Race cafegories exclude persons of 
Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core ot Data (CCD), ‘Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe 
Survey," 2012-13. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 216.60. 


The percentages of students in low-poverty and high- 
poverty schools varied by race/ethnicity. In school 
year 2012-13, higher percentages of Asian students 
(38 percent). White students (29 percent), and students 
of Two or more races (22 percent) attended low-poverty 
public schools than did Pacific Islander (12 percent), 
American Indian/Alaska Native (8 percent), Hispanic 


(8 percent), and Black (7 percent) students. In contrast, 
higher percentages of Black (45 percent), Hispanic 
(45 percent), and American Indian/Alaska Native 
(36 percent) students attended high-poverty public 
schools than did Pacific Islander students (26 percent), 
students of Two or more races (17 percent), Asian students 
(16 percent), and White students (8 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


110 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Figure 2. Percentage of public schooi students, by school poverty level and school locale: School year 2012-13 
Percent 

50 _ __________________________ 



Low poverty Mid-low poverty Mid-high poverty High poverty 


School poverty level 

■ City □ Suburban □ Town □ Rural 

NOTE: This figure does not include schools for which information on free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) is missing or schools that did not participate in the 
National School Lunch Program (NSLP).The NSLP is a federally assisted meal program. To be eligible for free lunch under the program, a student must be from 
a household with an income at or below 1 30 percent of the poverty threshold; to be eligible for reduced-price lunch, a student must be from a household 
with an income between 1 30 percent and 1 85 percent of the poverty threshold. High-poverty schools are defined as public schools where more than 75.0 
percent of the students are eligible for FRPL, and mid-high poverty schools are those schools where 50.1 to 75.0 percent of the students are eligible for FRPL. 
Low-poverty schools are defined as public schools where 25.0 percent or less of the students are eligible for FRPL, and mid-low poverty schools are those 
schools where 25.1 to 50.0 percent of the students are eligible for FRPL. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe 
Survey,” 2012-13. See Digest of Education Statistics 20M, table 216.60. 


The distribution of schools at different poverty 
concentrations varied by school locale (i.e., city, suburb, 
town, or rural). In school year 2012-13, some 40 percent 
of students attending city schools were in a high- 
poverty school, compared with 14 percent of students 
attending rural schools, 17 percent of students attending 
suburban schools, and 19 percent of students attending 
town schools. In contrast, the percentage of students 
attending suburban schools who were in a low-poverty 
school (32 percent) was about four times as large as the 


corresponding percentage of students attending town 
schools (8 percent). The percentage of students attending 
suburban schools who were in a low-poverty school was 
also higher than the percentages of students attending 
city and rural schools who were in a low-poverty school 
(13 and 16 percent, respectively). In addition, a majority 
(65 percent) of students attending city schools were in a 
high-poverty or mid-high poverty school while a majority 
(61 percent) of students attending suburban schools were 
in a low-poverty or mid-low poverty school. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
216.30 and 216.60; Digest of Education Statistics 2013, 
table 216.30 

Related indicators: Children Living in Poverty (indicator 5) 


Glossary: Free or reduced-price lunch. National School Lunch 
Program, Public school or institution 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 111 


Indicator 18 

Rates of School Crime 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Through nearly two deoades of deoline, the nonfatal viotimization rate for 12- to 
18-year-old students of sohool fell from 181 orlmes per 1,000 students In 1992 to 
55 per 1,000 students in 2013. The nonfatal viotimization rate away from sohool for 
these students also deolined from 173 to 30 orlmes per 1,000 students during the 
some period. 


Between 1992 and 2013, the total nonfatal victimization 
rate for students ages 12-18 declined both at school* and 
away from school. Included in nonfatal victimizations are 
theft and all violent crime. Violent crime includes serious 


violent crime (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated 
assault) and simple assault. Victimization rates for theft, 
violent crime, and for serious violent crime generally 
declined between 1992 and 2013 as well. 


Figure 1. Rate of total nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by location: 1992-2013 


Rate (per 1,000 students) 



Year 


NOTE: Due to methodological changes, use caution when comparing 2006 estimates to other years. "Total victimization" includes theft and violent crimes. "At 
school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department ot Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1992-2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2014, table 228.20. 


In 2013, students ages 12-18 reported more total nonfatal 
victimizations at school than away from school. Students 
ages 12-18 experienced 1,420,900 victimizations (theft 
and violent crime) at school, compared with 778,500 
victimizations away from school. These data represent 
total victimization rates of 55 crimes per 1,000 students 
at school and 30 per 1,000 students away from school. 


From 1992 to 2013, the rate of crime against students at 
school declined from 181 to 55 crimes per 1,000 students 
Away from school, the rate of crime against students 
also declined, from 173 to 30 crimes per 1,000 students. 
Between the two most recent survey years, 2012 and 
2013, the total victimization rate for students ages 12-18 
did not change measurably at or away from school. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


112 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Figure 2. Rate of thefts against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by location: 1992-2013 
Rate (per 1,000 students) 



Year 


NOTE: Due to methodological changes, use caution when comparing 2006 estimates to other years. "Theft" includes purse-snatching, pickpocketing, and all 
attempted and completed thefts, with the exception of motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery, which involves the threat or use of force and is 
classified as a violenf crime. "At school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 

SOURCE: U.S. Departmenf of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1992-2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2074, table 228.20. 


Theft declined both at and away from school between 
1992 and 2013. During this period, theft rates declined 
from 114 to 18 thefts per 1,000 students at school and 
from 79 to 16 thefts per 1,000 students away from school. 
The difference between theft rates at school and away 
from school narrowed from 35 more thefts per 1,000 
students at school than away from school in 1992 to no 


measurable difference in the theft rates per 1,000 students 
at school compared with away from school in 2013. The 
rate of theft at school was lower in 2013 (18 per 1,000 
students) than in 2011 (26 per 1,000 students) and in 
2012 (24 per 1,000 students). The theft rate away from 
school was lower in 2013 (16 per 1,000 students) than in 
2011 (21 per 1,000 students). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 113 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Figure 3. Rate of all nonfatal violent victimizations against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by location: 
1992-2013 


Rate (per 1,000 students) 



Year 


NOTE: Due to methodological changes, use caution when comparing 2006 estimates to other years. “All violent victimization" includes serious violent crimes 
and simple assault. "At school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1992-201 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2014, table 228.20. 


Between 1992 and 2013, nonfatal violent victimization 
rates decreased both at and away from school. During 
this period, violent crime declined from 68 to 37 violent 
victimizations per 1,000 students at school and from 94 
to 15 violent victimizations per 1,000 students away from 
school. In 1992, more violent victimizations occurred 
away from school (94 per 1,000 students) than at school 


(68 per 1,000 students); by contrast, in 2013 more violent 
victimizations occurred at school (37 per 1,000 students) 
than away from school (15 per 1,000 students). The 
rate of violent victimization against students at school 
was higher in 2013 than in 2011 (37 vs. 24 per 1,000 
students), although the 2013 rate away from school was 
not measurably different from the rate in 2011 or 2012. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


114 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 

Figure 4. Rate of nonfatal serious vioient victimizations against students ages 12-18 per 1,000 students, by location: 
1992-2013 


Rate (per 1.000 students) 



Year 


NOTE: Due to methodological changes, use ooution when comparing 2006 estimates to other years. 'Serious violent victimization' includes rape, sexual 
assault robbery, and aggravated assault. "At school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 1 992-201 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2014, table 228.20. 


The nonfatal serious violent victimization rate at school in 
2013 was not measurably different from the rate in 1992 
(5 serious violent crimes at school per 1,000 students in 
2013 compared with 8 per 1,000 students in 1992). The 
serious violent crime rate away from school decreased 
from 43 to 6 crimes per 1,000 students between 1992 and 
2013. The difference between serious violent crime rates 
at school and away from school also narrowed over the 


past two decades from 35 more serious violent crimes per 
1,000 students away from school than at school in 1992 
to no measurable difference in the rates of serious violent 
crimes at school and away from school in 2013. The rates 
of serious violent victimization at and away from school in 
2013 were not measurably different from the rates at and 
away from school in 2011 or 2012. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 115 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Figure 5. Rate of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12-18 at and away from school per 1,000 students, 
by type of victimization and age: 2013 


At school 


Away from school 


Rate (per 1,000 students) 

100 


Rate (per 1,000 students) 

100 



Type of victimization 

■ 1 2-14 years O 15-18 years 

! Interpret with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

’ Serious violent victimization is also included in violent victimization. 

NOTE: “Total victimization" includes theft and violent crimes. "Theft" includes purse-snatching, pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the 
exception of motor vehicle thefts. "Violent victimization" includes serious violent crimes and simple assault. "Serious violent victimization" includes rape, sexual 
assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. "At school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Detail may not 
sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 228.25. 


Nonfatal victimization rates for students in 2013 varied 
according to student characteristics. At school, rates of 
violent victimization and serious violent victimization 
were higher for younger students (ages 12-14) than for 
older students (ages 15-18). For example, the rate of 
violent victimization at school was 52 per 1,000 students 


for those ages 12-14, compared with 24 per 1,000 
students for those ages 15-18. No measurable differences 
were found by age group in the rates of theft at school. 
Away from school, no measurable differences were found 
by age group in the rates of theft, violent victimization, or 
serious violent victimization. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


116 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Figure 6. Rate of nonfatal victimizations against students ages 12-18 at and away from school per 1,000 students, 
by type of victimization and sex: 2013 


At school Away from school 


Rate (per 1.000 students) 

100 — 


Rate (per 1,000 students) 

100 I 


80 


80 — 


62 



Total Theft Violent' Serious violent 


60 


40 



Total Theft Violent' Serious violent 


Type of victimizafion 

■ Male □ Female 

I Interpret with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

' Serious violent victimization is also included in violent victimization. 

NOTE: "Total victimization" includes theft and violent crimes. "Theft" includes purse-snatching, pickpocketing, and all attempted and completed thefts, with the 
exeeption of motor vehicle thefts. "Viclent victimization" inoludes serious violent crimes and simple assault. "Serious violent victimization' inoludes rape, sexual 
assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. "At school" includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Detail may not 
sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 228.25. 


Both at school and away from school, the rate of total 
nonfatal victimization was not measurably different 
between males and females in 2013. In addition, no 


measurable differences were detected by sex for theft, 
violent victimization, or serious violent victimization rates, 
either at school or away from school. 


Endnotes: 

* At school includes inside the school building, on school 
property, or on the way to or from school. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
228.20 and 228.25 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 1 17 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Indicator 19 

Teachers and Pupil/Teacher Ratios 

Of the 6.2 million staff members in public elementary and secondary schools in 
fall 2012, some 3. 1 million, or 50 percent, were teachers. The pupil/teacher ratio 
in public schools decreased over time from 26. 9 students per teacher in 1 955 to 
17.9 in 1 985, and then further declined to 15.3 in 2008. In the most recent years, the 
pupil/teacher ratios in 2010,2011, and 2012 (all 16.0) were higher than the ratio in 
2009 (15.4). 


Of the 6.2 million staff members in public elementary 
and secondary schools in fall 2012, some 3.1 million, 
or 50 percent, were teachers. In addition, there were 
0.7 million instructional aides, such as teachers’ assistants, 
who made up another 12 percent of total staff. The 
percentages of public school staff have changed little 
in recent years. For example, between fall 2002 and 


fall 2012 the percentage of staff members who were 
teachers decreased from 51 to 50 percent, while the 
percentage of staff members who were instructional aides 
increased from 11 to 12 percent. By comparison, in fall 
1969 teachers represented 60 percent of public school 
staff, and instructional aides represented 2 percent of 
public school staff. 


Figure 1. Teachers as a percentage of staff in public elementary and secondary school systems, by state: Fall 2012 


U.S. average: 50.3 percent 



□ Less than 45.0 percent (6) 

□ 45.0 to 49.9 percent (22) 

□ 50.0 to 54.9 percent (1 5) 

□ 55.0 to 59.9 percent (6) 
I 60.0 percent or more (2) 


NOTE: The U.S. average includes imputations for underreporting and nonreporting states. The caloulations of teachers as a percentage of staff for Alabama, 
Alaska, California, Idaho, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, and West Virginia include imputations for underreporting. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/ 
Secondary Eduoation," 201 2-1 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 21 3.40. 


In 36 states and the District of Columbia, between 
45 and 55 percent of public school staff members in 
2012 were teachers. There were, however, six states where 
teachers made up less than 45 percent of public school 
staff (Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon, Wyoming, 


and Alaska) and eight states where they made up more 
than 55 percent of public school staff (Idaho, New York, 
Massachusetts, Kansas, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, 
Nevada, and South Carolina). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


118 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: School Characteristics and Climate 


Figure 2. Public and private elementary and secondary school pupil/teacher ratios: Selected years, fall 1955 through 
fall 2012 



1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012 


Year 


NOTE: Data for teachers are expressed in full-time equivalents (FTE). Data for public schools include prekindergarten through grade 1 2. Data tor private 
schools include prekindergarten through grade 12 in schools offering kindergarten or higher grades. The pupil/teacher ratio includes teachers for students 
with disabilities and other special teachers. Ratios for public schools reflect totals reported by states and differ from totals reported for schools or school 
districts. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. Data for private schools are projected for 201 2. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center tor Education Statistics, Statistics of Pubiic Elementary and Secondary Day Schools. 1 955-56 through 
1 980-81 ; Common Core of Data (CCD), "State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education," 1 981 -82 through 201 2-1 3; and Private School 
Universe Survey (PSS), 1 989-90 through 201 1 -1 2. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 208.20. 


The number of students per teacher, or the pupil/ 
teacher ratio,' has been generally decreasing for more 
than 50 years at both public and private schools. In fall 
1955, there were 1.1 million public and 145,000 private 
elementary and secondary school teachers in the United 
States. By fall 2012,^ these numbers had nearly tripled 
for both public school teachers (to 3.1 million) and 
private school teachers (to 414,000). However, increases 
in student enrollment were proportionally smaller over 
this period: from 31 million to 50 million public school 
students (a 62 percent increase) and from 4.6 million to 
5.2 million private school students (a 13 percent increase). 
(See also Public School Enrollment and Private School 


Enrollment.) For public schools, the resulting decline in 
the pupil/teacher ratio was concentrated in the period 
between 1955 and 1985. During this period, the public 
school pupil/teacher ratio fell from 26.9 to 17.9. Over 
the next 23 years, the public school pupil/teacher ratio 
declined to 15.3 in 2008. In the most recent years, the 
pupil/teacher ratios in 2010, 2011, and 2012 (all 16.0) 
were higher than the ratio in 2009 (15.4). The private 
school pupil/teacher ratio decreased more steeply than the 
public school ratio over the period of 1955 to 2012, from 
31.7 students per teacher to 12.5. The pupil/teacher ratio 
has been lower for private schools than for public schools 
since 1972. 


Endnotes: 

* The pupil/ teacher ratio measures the number of students 
per teacher. It reflects teacher workload and the availability 
of teachers’ services to their students. The lower the pupil/ 
teacher ratio, the higher the availability of teacher services 
to students. The pupil/ teacher ratio is not the same as class 
size, however. Class size can be described as the number 


of students a teacher faces during a given period of 
instruction. The relationship between these two measures 
of teacher workload is affected by a variety of factors, 
including the number of classes a teacher is responsible for 
and the number of classes taken by students. 

^ Data for private schools are projected for 2012. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
208.20,213.10, and 213.40 

Related indicators: Public School Enrollment (indicator 8), 
Private School Enrollment (indicator 10) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 119 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Einance 


Indicator 20 

Public School Revenue Sources 

From school years 2001-02 through 2011-12, total elementary and secondary 
public school revenues increased from $553 biiiion to $620 biiiion (in constant 
2013-14 dollars). During the most recent period from 2010-11 through 2011-12, 
total revenues for public elementary and secondary schools decreased by about 
$22 billion, or more than 3 percent. 


From school years 2001-02 through 2011-12, total 
elementary and secondary public school revenues 
increased from $553 billion to $620 billion (in constant 
2013-14 dollars), a 12 percent increase, adjusting for 
inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This 
increase was accompanied by a 4 percent increase in total 
elementary and secondary public school enrollment, from 
48 million students in 2001-02 to 50 million students 
in 2011-12. Federal revenues increased 89 percent from 
2001—02 to 2009—10 (from $44 billion to $82 billion), 
but decreased by 3 percent from 2009-10 to 2010-11 


(from $82 billion to $80 billion). These revenues then 
decreased by another 22 percent, to $63 billion in 
2011—12. From 2001—02 through 2011—12, local revenues 
increased by 17 percent, to $277 billion in 2011-12. State 
revenues fluctuated between $272 billion and $314 billion 
during this period, and they were 3 percent higher in 
2011-12 than in 2001-02 ($280 billion vs. $272 billion). 
During this period, federal revenues peaked in 2009-10 
at $82 billion, while local revenues peaked in 2008-09 
at $284 billion and state revenues peaked in 2007-08 at 
$314 billion. 


Figure 1. Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by revenue source: School years 2001-02 through 
2011-12 


Revenues (in billions) [In constant 201 3-1 4 dollars] 



School year 

NOTE: Revenues are in constant 2013-14 dollars, adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), ’National Public Education Financial Survey," 
2001-02 through 201 1-1 2. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 235.10. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


120 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Einance 


The percentage of total revenues for public elementary 
and secondary education that came from federal sources 
was 8 percent in school year 2001-02 and 10 percent in 
2011-12. Between school years 2001-02 and 2011-12, 
the percentage coming from local sources fluctuated 
between 43 and 45 percent, accounting for 45 percent 
of total revenues in 2011-12. The percentage of total 
revenues from state sources decreased from 49 percent in 
school year 2001-02 to a low of 43 percent in school year 
2009-10. The percentage of revenues from state sources 
was higher in 2011—12 (45 percent) than in 2009—10 
(43 percent). 

More recently, from school years 2010—11 through 
2011-12, total revenues for public elementary and 
secondary schools decreased by about $22 billion in 
constant 2013-14 dollars (3 percent). During this period, 
federal revenue declined by $17 billion (22 percent) and 
state revenue declined by $3 billion (1 percent). Local 
revenues declined by $1.6 billion (1 percent), reflecting a 


$2.1 billion decrease in revenues from local property taxes, 
a $0.7 billion increase in other local public revenues, and 
a $0.2 billion decrease in private revenues (consisting of 
receipts from school lunches, student activities, and other 
fees from students). Other local public revenues were 
the only source that increased from 2010-11 through 
2011-12. 

In school year 2011-12, there were significant variations 
across the states in the percentages of public school 
revenues coming from state, local, and federal sources of 
revenue. In 20 states, at least half of education revenues 
came from state governments, while in 16 states and 
the District of Columbia at least half came from local 
revenues. In the remaining 14 states, no single revenue 
source made up more than half of education revenues: 
Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. 


Figure 2. State revenues for public eiementary and secondary schoois as a percentage of totai pubiic school revenues, 
by state: School year 2011-12 



I I Less than 40.0 percent (15) 

^ 40.0 percent-49.9 percent (15) 
I 50.0 percent or higher (20) 

I I Not applicable (1) 


NOTE: All 50 states and the District of Columbia are included in the U.S. average, even though the District ot Columbia does not receive any state revenue. 
The District of Columbia and Hawaii have only one school district each: therefore, neither is comparable to the other states. Categorizations are based on 
unrounded percentages. Excludes revenues for state education agencies. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Eduoation, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), 'National Publio Education Financial Survey,' 
2011-1 2. See Digest ot Education Statistics 2014, table 235.20. 


In school year 2011-12, the percentages of public school 
revenues coming from state sources were highest in 
Vermont and Hawaii (88 and 85 percent, respectively), 
and lowest in South Dakota and Nebraska (31 percent 
each). The percentage of revenues coming from federal 
sources was highest in Mississippi (18 percent), followed 
by Louisiana and South Dakota (17 percent each); the 
percentage was lowest in Connecticut and New Jersey 


(5 percent each), followed by Maryland (6 percent). 
Among all states, the percentage of revenues coming 
from local sources was highest in Nebraska and Illinois 
(60 percent each), and lowest in Vermont and Hawaii 
(4 and 2 percent, respectively). Most of the revenues for 
the District of Columbia (90 percent) were from local 
sources; the remaining 10 percent of revenues were from 
federal sources. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 121 



Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Einance 


Figure 3. Property tax revenues for public elementary and secondary schools as a percentage of total public school 
revenues, by state: School year 2011-12 



NOTE: All 50 states and the District of Columbia are included in the U.S. average. The District of Columbia and Hawaii have only one school district each; 
therefore, neither is comparable to the other states. Categorizations are based on unrounded percentages. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD). "National Public Education Financial Survey." 
2011-1 2. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 235.20. 


In school year 2011-12, local property taxes constituted 
81 percent of total local revenues and 36 percent of 
total revenues for elementary and secondary schools. 

The percentages of total revenues from local property 
taxes differed by state. In 2011-12, New Hampshire and 
Connecticut had the highest percentage of revenues from 
property taxes, at 55 percent each. Five other states had 
percentages of revenues from property taxes of 50 percent 
or more (in descending order): Illinois, New Jersey, 


Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Nebraska. Vermont 
and Hawaii' had the lowest percentages of revenues from 
property taxes (0.1 percent and 0 percent, respectively). 

In 14 other states, property taxes made up less than 
25 percent of education revenues (in descending order): 
Montana, Delaware, California, Maryland, Indiana, 
Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho, Minnesota, 
Louisiana, Alabama, New Mexico, and Alaska. 


Endnotes: 

' Hawaii has only one school district, which receives no 
funding from property taxes. 

Glossary: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Elementary 
school, Property tax, Public school or institution. Revenue, 
Secondary school 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
235.10 and 235.20; Digest of Education Statistics 2013, table 
203.20 

Related indicators: Public School Expenditures (indicator 21) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


122 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Indicator 21 

Public School Expenditures 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Einance 


From 2000-01 to 2011-12, ourrent expenditures per student in pubiio eiementary 
and seoondary sohoois inoreased by 1 1 peroent, after adjusting for inflation. 
Current expenditures per student peaked in 2008-09 at $1 1,537 and have 
deoreased eaoh year sinoe then. The amount for 201 1-12 ($1 1,014) was 3 peroent 
less than the amount for 2010-1 1 ($1 1,332). 


Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary 
schools in the United States amounted to $621 billion in 
2011-12, or $12,401 per public school student enrolled 
in the fall (in constant 2013-14 dollars, based on the 
Consumer Price Index). These expenditures include 


$11,014 per student in current expenditures for operation 
of schools; $1,018 for capital outlay (i.e., expenditures for 
property and for buildings and alterations completed by 
school district staff or contractors); and $370 for interest 
on school debt. 


Figure 1. Total expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by type of 
expenditure: 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2011-12 


Total expenditures per student [In constant 2013-14 dollars] 



Type of expenditure 

I 2000-01 □ 2005-06 □ 2010-11 □ 2011-12 


NOTE: Current expenditures. Capital outlay, and Interest on sohool debt are subcategories of Total expenditures. Capital outlay includes expenditures for 
property and for buildings and alterations completed by school district staff or contractors. Expenditures are reported in constant 2013-14 dollars, based on 
the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Common Core of Data (CCD). "National Public Education Financial Survey." 
2000-01 , 2005-06. 201 0-1 1 , and 201 1 -1 2. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 236.60. 


From 2000-01 to 2011-12, current expenditures per 
student enrolled in the fall in public elementary and 
secondary schools increased by 11 percent (from $9,904 
to $11,014 in constant 2013-14 dollars). Current 
expenditures per student peaked in 2008-09 at $11,537 
and have decreased each year since then. The amount 
for 2011-12 ($11,014) was 3 percent ($318) less than the 
amount for 2010-11 ($11,332). 


Interest payments on school debt per student in fall 
enrollment increased by 28 percent (from $289 to $370 
in constant 2013-14 dollars) during the period from 
2000-01 to 2011-12. Capital outlay expenditures per 
student in 2011-12 ($1,018) were 22 percent lower than 
the 2000-01 amount ($1,310) and 7 percent lower than 
the 2010-11 amount ($1,094); however, there were some 
fluctuations during this period. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


124 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Einance 


Figure 2. Current expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, by function 
of expenditure: 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2011-12 


Current expenditures per student 


[In constant 2013-14 dollars] 



Instruction Student support Instructional statf Operation and Administration Transportation Food services 

services maintenance 

Function ot expenditure 


I 2000-01 □ 2005-06 □ 2010-11 □ 2011-12 


NOTE: Instruction. Student support. Instructional staff servioes. Operation and maintenance, Administration, Transportation, and Food servioes are 
subcategories of Current expenditures. Student support includes expenditures for guidanoe. heaith. attendance, and speech pathoiogy services, 
instructionai staff services include expenditures for curriculum development, staff training, iibraries. and media and computer centers. Administration inciudes 
both generai administration and school administration. Transportation refers to student transportation. Expenditures are reported in constant 2013-14 doiiars, 
based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

SCURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Nationai Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD),"Nationai Pubiio Education Financial Survey," 
2000-01 , 2005-06, 201 0-1 1 , and 201 1 -1 2. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 236.60. 


In addition to being reported by type, expenditures are 
also reported by function, which describes the activity for 
which a service or material object is acquired. Per student 
current expenditures (in constant 2013-14 dollars) 
increased for most functions between 2000-01 and 2011- 
12, though expenditures for most functions were lower in 
2011—12 than in 2010—11. In 2011—12, instruction — the 
single largest component of current expenditures — was 
$6,706 per student, or about 61 percent of current 
expenditures. Instruction expenditures include salaries 
and benefits of teachers and teaching assistants as well 
as costs for instructional materials and instructional 
services provided under contract. Between 2000-01 
and 2011-12, expenditures per student for instruction 
increased by 10 percent (from $6,093 to $6,706), though 
they peaked in 2009-10 at $7,059. Expenditures per 
pupil for instruction for 2011-12 ($6,706) were 3 percent 


lower than the amount in 2010-11 ($6,932). Expenditures 
between 2000-01 and 2011-12 for several other major 
school functions increased more rapidly. However, with 
the exception of food services, instructional staff services, 
and transportation services, all function categories peaked 
within a year of 2009-10. For example, expenditures per 
student for student support services, such as guidance and 
health personnel, increased by 25 percent from 2000-01 
to 2011-12 (from $492 to $613), but peaked in 2009-10 
at $640. Expenditures per student for instructional staff 
services, including curriculum development, staff training, 
libraries, and media and computer centers, increased by 
13 percent from 2000-01 to 2011-12 (from $453 to 
$511), but peaked in 2008-09 at $556. The exception 
to this trend was food services where expenditures per 
student in 2011-12 were the highest ever reported ($443). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 125 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Einance 


Figure 3. Percentage of current expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary 
schools, by type of expenditure: 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2011-12 



Type of expenditure 

I 2000-01 Q 2005-06 Q 2010-11 Q 2011-12 


NOTE: Salaries and benefits. Salaries, Benefits, Purchased services, and Suppiies are subcategories of Current expenditures. Purchased services inciude 
expenditures for contracts for food, transportation, or janitoriai services, or professional development for teachers. Supplies include expenditures for items 
ranging from books to heating oil. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "National Public Education Financial Survey," 
2000-01 , 2005-06, 201 0-1 1 , and 201 1 -1 2. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 236.60. 


Current expenditures for education can also be expressed 
in terms of the percentage of funds going toward salaries, 
benefits, purchased services, or supplies. On a national 
basis in 2011-12, approximately 80 percent of current 
expenditures were for salaries and benefits for staff. 
Approximately 10 percent of current expenditures were 
for purchased services, which include a wide variety 
of items, such as contracts for food, transportation, or 
janitorial services, or for professional development for 
teachers. Generally speaking, this expenditure distribution 
shifted only slightly from 2000—01 to 2011—12, when 


expenditures for purchased services increased from 
9 to 10 percent. Eight percent of school expenditures in 
2011-12 were for supplies, ranging from books to heating 
oil. The percentages of expenditures for supplies changed 
less than one percentage point over the period from 
2000-01 to 2011-12. There were, however, shifts within 
the distribution of salaries and benefits for staff, as the 
proportion of school budgets for staff salaries decreased 
from 64 percent in 2000—01 to 59 percent in 2011—12, 
and the proportion of staff benefits increased from 17 to 
22 percent during this period. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
236.10, 236.55, and 236.60 

Related indicators: Public School Revenue Sources 
(indicator 20) 


Glossary: Consumer Price Index (CPI); Current expenditures 
(elementary/secondary); Expenditures, total; Public school or 
institution; Salary 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


126 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Einance 


Indicator 22 

Education Expenditures by Country 

In 201 1, the United States spent $11,841 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student on 
elementary and secondary education, an amount 35 percent higher than the 
OECD average of $8,789. At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures per FTE 
student were $26,021, almost twice as high as the OECD average of $13,619. 


This indicator uses material from the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
report Education at a Glance 2014 to compare countries’ 
expenditures on education using the measures expenditures 
per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student from both public 
and private sources and total education expenditures 
as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). The 
OECD is an organization of 34 countries whose 
purpose is to promote trade and economic growth. 
Education expenditures are from public revenue sources 
(governments) and private revenue sources, and include 
current and capital expenditures. Private sources include 
payments from households for school-based expenses 
such as tuition, transportation fees, book rentals, or 
food services, as well as public funding via subsidies to 
households, private fees for education services, or other 
private spending that goes through the educational 
institution. The total education expenditures as a percentage 
of GDP measure allows a comparison of countries’ 
expenditures relative to their ability to finance education. 
Purchasing power parity (PPP) indexes are used to convert 
other currencies to U.S. dollars (i.e., absolute terms). 


A country’s wealth (defined as GDP per capita) is 
positively associated with expenditures per FTE student 
on education at the elementary and secondary level as 
well as at the postsecondary level. In terms of OECD 
countries that reported expenditures per FTE student 
in 2011 at both the elementary/secondary level and the 
postsecondary level, each of the 10 countries with the 
highest GDP per capita (Switzerland, the United States, 
Norway, Australia, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, 
Denmark, Sweden, and Germany) had education 
expenditures per FTE student higher than the OECD 
average at both the elementary/secondary level and the 
postsecondary level, and each of the 9 countries with the 
lowest GDP per capita (Mexico, Chile, Turkey, Poland, 
Hungary, Estonia, the Slovak Republic, Portugal, and 
the Czech Republic) had education expenditures per 
FTE student lower than the OECD average at both the 
elementary/secondary level and the postsecondary level. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


128 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Einance 


Figure 1. Annual expenditures per fuil-time-equivalent (FTE) student for eiementary and secondary education in 

selected Organization for Economic Cooperation and Deveiopment (OECD) countries, by gross domestic 
product (GDP) per capita: 2011 


Expenditures per FTE student 



GDP per capita, in U.S. dollars 

-Linear relationship between spending and country wealth for 32 OECD countries reporting data (elementary/secondary): r^ = .89; slope = 0.29; interoept = -1 264. 
NOTE: Data tor Luxembourg are excluded from the figure because of anomalies in that country's GDP per capita data. (Large revenues from international 
finance institutions in Luxembourg distort the wealth of that country's population.) Data for Greece are excluded because expenditure data are not available 
for 2008, 2009, 201 0, or 201 1 . Expenditure and GDP data for Canada are for 201 0. Expenditures for International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 
level 4 (postsecondary non-higher-education) are included in elementary and secondary education unless otherwise noted. Expenditure data for Canada, 
France, Italy, Portugal, and the United States do not include postsecondary non-higher-education. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Center for Educational Research and Innovation. (2014). Education at a Glance 
2014. See Digest of Education Statistios 2014, table 605.1 0. 


Expenditures per FTE student varied widely across 
OECD countries. At the elementary and secondary level, 
expenditures per FTE student in 2011 included low 
values such as $2,501 for Turkey, $2,765 for Mexico, and 
$3,203 for Chile. Switzerland had the highest value of 


$14,623. Expenditures per FTE student at the elementary/ 
secondary level for the United States were $11,841, an 
amount 35 percent higher than the average of $8,789 for 
OECD member countries reporting data. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 129 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Einance 


Figure 2. Annual expenditures per full-time-equivaient (FTE) student for postsecondary education in seiected 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Deveiopment (OECD) countries, by gross domestic product 
(GDP) per capita: 2011 


Expenditures per FTE student 



GDP per capita, in U.S. dollars 


-Linear relationship between spending and country wealth for 32 OECD countries reporting data (postsecondary): = .73; slope = 0.47; intercept = -2071 . 

NOTE: Data for Luxembourg are excluded because that country does not report expenditure data tor postsecondary institutions. Data tor Greece ore 
excluded because expenditure data are not available for 2008, 2009, 201 0, or 201 1 . Expenditure and GDP data for Canada are for 201 0. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Center for Educational Research and Innovation. (2014). Education at a Glance 
2014. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 605.10. 


At the postsecondary level, expenditures per FTE student 
in 2011 included low values such as $7,101 for Chile, 
$7,868 for Estonia, and $7,889 for Mexico. The United 


States had the highest postsecondary level expenditures 
per FTE student at $26,021, which were almost twice as 
high as the OECD average of $13,619. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


130 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Einance 


Figure 3. Direct expenditures on education as a percentage of gross domestic prcduct (GDP) for Organization 

for Economic Cooperaticn and Deveiopment (OECD) countries with the highest percentages, by level of 
education; 2011 


Percent of GDP spent on education 



OECD average Denmark' Iceland Republic of Korea New Zealand Israel United States 

Country 


I All Institutions □ Elementary and secondary □ Postsecondary 
^ Postsecondary non-higher-education included in both secondary and higher education. 

NOTE: Postsecondary non-higher-education is included in elementary and secondary education unless otherwise noted. Expenditure data for the United 
States does not include postsecondary non-higher-education. All institutions total includes expenditures that could not be reported by level of education. 
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Center for Educational Research and Innovation. (2014). Education at a Glance 
20 1 4. See Digest of Education Statistics 20 1 4, ta ble 605 . 20 . 


Among the OECD countries reporting data in 2011, 
five countries spent over 7 percent of their GDP on total 
education expenditures for all institutions combined: 
Denmark (7.9 percent), Iceland (7.7 percent), the Republic 
of Korea (7.6 percent). New Zealand (7.5 percent), 
and Israel (7.3 percent). The United States spent just 
under 7 percent (6.9 percent) of its GDP on total 
education expenditures. 

In terms of countries’ direct expenditures by education 
level, the percentage of GDP the United States spent on 
elementary and secondary education (3.7 percent) was 
slightly lower than the OECD average (3.8 percent). 
Eleven OECD countries spent less than 3.7 percent 


of their GDP on elementary/secondary education, 

11 countries spent between 3.7 and 4.1 percent, and seven 
countries spent more than 4.1 percent. New Zealand 
(5.4 percent) was the OECD country that spent the 
highest percentage of GDP on elementary/secondary 
education. At the postsecondary level, spending as a 
percentage of GDP for the United States (2.7 percent) was 
higher than the OECD average (1.6 percent) and higher 
than spending as a percentage of GDP for any other 
OECD country reporting data. Only two other countries 
spent more than 2 percent of their GDP on postsecondary 
education: the Republic of Korea (2.6 percent) and Chile 
(2.4 percent). 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
605.10 and 605.20 

Related indicators: International Educational Attainment 
(indicator 2) 


Glossary: Expenditures per pupil, Eull-time-equivalent (ETE) 
enrollment. Gross domestic product (GDP), Organization 
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 
Postsecondary education. Purchasing Power Parity 
(PPP) indexes 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 131 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Indicator 23 

Reading Performance 

The average grade 8 reading score was higher in 2013 than in 201 1, according to 
data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. At grade 4, the average 
score in 2013 was not measurably different from the score in 2011. Similarly, at 
grade 12 the average score in 2013 was not measurably different from that in 2009. 


The National Assessment of Educational Progress 
(NAEP) assesses student performance in reading at 
grades 4, 8, and 12. NAEP reading scores range from 
0 to 500 for all grade levels. NAEP achievement levels 
define what students should know and be able to do: 
Basic indicates partial mastery of fundamental skills. 


and Proficient indicates demonstrated competency over 
challenging subject matter. NAEP reading assessments are 
administered periodically: prior to 2013, the most recent 
assessment data were collected at grades 4 and 8 in 2011 
and at grade 12 in 2009. 



1992 1994 1998 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 


Year 


NOTE: Includes public and private schools. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. Assessment was not 
conducted for grade 8 in 2000 or for grade 1 2 in 2000, 2003, 2007, and 201 1 .Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group testing) for children 
with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1992 and 1994. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years, 
1992-2013 Reading Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 221 .10. 


In 2013, the average reading score for 4th-grade students 
(222) was not measurably different from the 2011 score, 
but it was higher than the scores on assessments between 
1992 (217) and 2009 (221). For 8th-grade students, 
the average reading score in 2013 (268) was more than 
2 points higher than in 2011 (265), was 8 points higher 


than in 1992 (260), and was higher than the average 
scores in all previous years. In 2013, the average reading 
score for 12th-grade students (288) was not measurably 
different from the score in 2009, but it was 4 points lower 
than in 1992 (292). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


132 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 2. Percentage distribution of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grode students across Nationai Assessment of Educotionoi 
Progress (NAEP) reading achievement levels: Selected years, 1992-2013 


Percent 

100 


80 

60 

40 

20 

0 


Grade 4 



1992 1994 1998 2000 


2002 


2003 2005 


2007 


2009 201 1 


2013 



Percent 

100 


60 

40 



20 


20 


0 I — 

1992 



1 994 1 998 



2002 




Year 

I Below Basic Q At or above Basic At or above Proficient 

NOTE: Includes public and private schocis. Achievement levels define what students should know and be able to do: Basic indicates partial mastery of 
fundamental skills, and Proffc/enf indicates demonstrated competency over chalienging subject matter. Assessment was not conducted for grade 8 in 2000 
or for grade 1 2 in 2000, 2003, 2007, and 201 1 .Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group testing) for children with disabiiities and English 
language learners were net permitted in 1992 and 1994. Detail may net sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Eduoation, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years, 
1992-2013 Reading Assessments, NAEP Data Expicrer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 221 .12. 


In 2013, the percentage of 4th-grade students performing 
at or above the Basic achievement level (68 percent) was 
not measurably different from the percentage in 2011 but 
was higher than the percentage in 1992 (62 percent). A 
higher percentage of 4th-grade students performed at or 
above the Proficient a.chievement level in 2013 (35 percent) 
than in 2011 (34 percent) and 1992 (29 percent). Among 
8th-grade students, the percentage performing at or 
above Basic in 2013 (78 percent) was higher than in 2011 
(76 percent) and 1992 (69 percent). A higher percentage 


of 8th-grade students performed at or above Proficient in 
2013 (36 percent) than in 2011 (34 percent) and 1992 
(29 percent). Among 12th-grade students, the percentage 
performing at or above Basic in 2013 (75 percent) was 
not measurably different from the percentage in 2009, 
but was lower than the percentage in 1992 (80 percent). 
The percentage of 12th-graders performing at or above 
Proficient in 2013 (38 percent) was not measurably 
different from the percentage in 2009 but was lower than 
the percentage in 1992 (40 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 133 












Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 3. Average reading scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade students, by race/ethnicity: 1992, 2011, and 2013 


Scale score 

500 


Grade 4 



White 


Black Hispanic 

Race/ethnicity 

I 1993 □ 2011 □ 2013 


Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/ 
Alaska Native 


t Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate). 

NOTE: Includes public and private schools. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. Testing 
accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group testing) for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1 992. Race 
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1 992, 201 1 , and 201 3 
Reading Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 221 .10. 


At grade 4, the average reading score for White students 
was higher in 2013 (232) than in both 2011 (231) and 
1992 (224). The 2013 scores for Black (206), Hispanic 
(207), and Asian/Pacific Islander (235) 4th-graders were 
not measurably different from the 2011 scores, but the 
2013 scores were higher than the 1992 scores. Average 
reading scores for 8th-grade White (276), Black (250), 
Hispanic (256), and Asian/Pacific Islander (280) students 
were higher in 2013 than in 2011 and 1992. In 2013, the 
scores for American Indian/Alaska Native 4th-graders 
(205) and 8th-graders (251) were not measurably different 


from the scores in 2011. Prior to 2011, separate data for 
Asians, Pacific Islanders, and students of Two or more 
races were not collected at the school level. At grade 4, 
the 2013 average reading scores for Asians (237), Pacific 
Islanders (212), and students of Two or more races (227) 
were not measurably different from the 2011 scores. 

At grade 8, Asian students scored higher in 2013 (282) 
than in 2011 (277); the 2013 scores for Pacific Islanders 
(259) and students of Two or more races (271) were not 
measurably different from the 2011 scores. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


134 The Condition of Education 2015 


Closing achievement gaps is a goal of both national and 
state education policies. From 1998 through 2013, the 
average reading scores for White 4th- and 8th-graders 
were higher than those of their Black and Hispanic 
peers. Although the White-Black and White-Hispanic 
achievement gaps did not change measurably from 2011 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 

to 2013 for either grade 4 or 8, some of the racial/ethnic 
achievement gaps have narrowed since the early 1990s. 
At grade 4, the White-Black gap narrowed from 1992 
(32 points) to 2013 (26 points); at grade 8, the White- 
Hispanic gap narrowed from 1992 (26 points) to 2013 
(21 points). 


Figure 4. Average reading scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade students, by sex: 1992, 2011, and 2013 


Scale score Grade 4 



Scale score Grade 8 

500 

300 



Male „ Female 

Sex 

I 1992 □ 2011 □ 2013 

NOTE: Includes public and private schocIs.The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale ranges from 0 fo SOO.Tesfing 
accommodafions (e.g., extended time, smali group testing) for chiidren with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1 992. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1 992, 201 1 , and 201 3 
Reading Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 221 .10. 


At grade 4, the average reading scores for male (219) 
and female (225) students in 2013 were not measurably 
different from those in 2011 but were higher than those in 
1992 (213 and 221, respectively). At grade 8, the average 
reading score for male students in 2013 (263) was higher 
than in 2011 (261) and 1992 (254). The average score 
for female students was also higher in 2013 (273) than 


in 2011 (270) and 1992 (267). Since 1992, females have 
scored higher than males at both grades 4 and 8. In 2013, 
the gender gap was 7 points for 4th-grade students and 
10 points for 8th-grade students. The gender gaps for both 
4th- and 8th-grade students were not measurably different 
from the corresponding gaps in 2011 and 1992. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 135 


Since 1998, NAEP has collected data regarding student 
English language learner (ELL) status. In 2013 and in all 
previous assessment years since 1998, the NAEP average 
reading scale scores for non-ELL 4th- and 8th-graders 
were higher than the scores for their ELL peers. In 2013, 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 

the achievement gap between non-ELL and ELL students 
was 38 points at the 4th-grade level and 45 points at the 
8th-grade level. The 2013 reading achievement gaps at 
both grade levels were not measurably different from the 
gaps in either 2011 or 1998. 


Figure 5. Average reading scaie scores of 12th-grade students, by sex and race/ethnicity: 1992, 2009, and 2013 
Scale score 


500 


300 


270 


240 



Scale score 

500 


300 


270 


240 


210 


180 


150 



297 296 297 


White 


Male 


Sex 


273 


269 268 


279 


274 276 


Black 


Hispanic 

Race/ethnicity 


Female 


298 296 


283 


277 


Asian/ American indian/ 

Pacific Isiander Aiaska Native 


H 1992 □ 2009 □ 2013 

t Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate). 

NOTE: Includes public and private schools. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. Testing 
accommodations (e.g.. extended time, small group testing) for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1 992. Race 
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1 992, 2009, and 201 3 
Reading Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 221 .10. 


At grade 12, the average reading scale scores did not 
change measurably from 1992 to 2013 for White, 
Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander students. For Black 
students, the 2013 average score (268) was lower than the 
score in 1992 (273) but was not measurably different from 
the 2009 score. Similarly, the score for American Indian/ 
Alaska Native students in 2013 (277) was not measurably 
different from the score in 2009. In 2013, the reading 


scores for Asians, Pacific Islanders, and students of Two or 
more races were 296, 289, and 291, respectively. 

Achievement gaps were also evident for 12th-grade 
students. The White-Black gap was wider in 2013 
(30 points) than in 1992 (24 points), while the White- 
Hispanic gap in 2013 (22 points) was not measurably 
different from the gap in 1992. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


136 The Condition of Education 2015 


The 2013 average scores for male (284) and female (293) 
12th-grade students were not measurably different from 
the scores in 2009 but were lower than the scores in 1992 
(287 and 297, respectively). The gender gap at grade 12 
in 2013 (10 points) was not measurably different from 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 

the gap in 2009 or 1992. In 2013, non-ELL 12th-graders 
scored higher than their EEL peers by 53 points. The 
achievement gap between non-ELL and ELL students in 
2013 was not measurably different from the gap in either 
2009 or 1998. 


Figure 6. Change in average reading scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade public school students, by state: Between 2011 
and 2013 




NOTE: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scaie ranges from 0 to 500. "Gain" is defined as a significant increase from 201 1 to 
201 3, "No Change" is defined as no significant change from 201 1 to 201 3, and "Loss" is defined as a significant decrease from 201 1 to 201 3. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Nationai Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educationoi Progress (NAEP), 201 1 and 201 3 Reading 
Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, tables 221 .40 and 221 .60. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 137 


NAEP results also permit state-level comparisons of 
the reading abilities of 4th- and 8th-grade students in 
public schools. While there was no measurable change 
from 2011 to 2013 in the average score for 4th-grade 
public school students nationally, average scores were 
higher in 2013 than in 2011 in Colorado, the District of 
Columbia, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Tennessee, 
and Washington; scores were lower in 2013 than in 
2011 in Massachusetts, Montana, and North Dakota. 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 

At grade 8, although the average reading score for public 
school students nationally was 2 points higher in 2013 
than in 2011, only 12 states (Arkansas, California, 

Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington) plus 
the District of Columbia had higher scores in 2013 
than in 2011. In the other states, scores did not change 
measurably from 2011 to 2013. 


Figure 7. Average reading scaie scores of 4th- and 8th-grade pubiic school students, by jurisdiction: 2013 


Jurisdiction 

Grade 4 

Grade 8 

Nation (public) 

221 

266 

Large city 

212 

258 

Albuquerque 

# 207 

256 

Atlanta 

4 214 

4 255 

Austin 

4 221 

♦ 261 

Baltimore City 

4 204 

^r 252 

Boston 

214 

4 257 

Charlotte 

♦ 226 

^ 266 

Chicago 

# 206 

# 253 

Cleveland 

# 190 

# 239 

Dallas 

# 205 

251 

Detroit 

# 190 

# 239 

District of Columbia (DCPS) 

# 206 

# 245 

Fresno 

4 196 

# 245 

Hillsborough County (FL) 

♦ 228 

4 267 

Houston 

# 208 

252 

Jefferson County (KY) 

4 221 

# 261 

Los Angeles 

# 205 

♦ 250 

Miami-Dade 

♦ 223 

-1- 259 

Milwaukee 

4 199 

4 242 

New York City 

♦ 216 

# 256 

Philadelphia 

# 200 

# 249 

San Diego 

♦ 218 

260 


-f- Higher average score -f- Lower average score 4 No signifioant differenoe 
than national than national between urban district 

average score average soore and national average soore 


NOTE: The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. "Large city" includes students from all cities in the nation 
with populations of 250,000 or more, including the participating districts. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (201 3). The Nation's Report Cord: A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading 
Trial Urban District Assessment (NCES 2014-466), figure 2. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 221 .80. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


138 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


NAEP also collects data for Trial Urban Districts at 
grades 4 and 8. The Trial Urban District Assessment is 
intended to focus attention on urban education and to 
measure the educational progress of participating large 
urban districts. The results of the 21 urban districts are 
based on the same reading assessment used to report 
national and state results. This allows each district 
to compare its performance to the performance of its 
home state as well as to that of other states and other 
participating districts. 

In 2013, the 4th-grade large city average score (212) was 
lower than the national average score (221). Additionally, 
students in 15 urban districts had scores lower than 
the national average, while 4 had scores that were not 
measurably different. In contrast, students in two urban 
districts (Charlotte and Hillsborough County-FL) had 
scores higher than the national average. Similarly, the 
8th-grade large city average score (258) was lower than 
the national average score (266). None of the urban 
districts had 8th-grade scale scores higher than the 
national average. However, students in two urban districts 
(Charlotte and Hillsborough County-FL) had scores that 
were not measurably different from the national average. 


In 2013, fourth-graders in two urban districts (the 
District of Columbia and Los Angeles) performed better 
in reading than 4th-grade students did in 2011. There 
was a decline in Houston, while students in the other 
18 urban districts showed no change. Eighth-graders in 
five urban districts (Baltimore City, Dallas, the District 
of Columbia, Fresno, and Los Angeles) improved upon 
the 2011 performance, while students in all other 
participating urban districts showed no change. 

In terms of proficiency levels, 34 percent of 4th-grade 
public school students nationwide performed at or 
above the Proficient level in reading. Compared with 
this national average, two urban districts (Charlotte and 
Hillsborough County-FL) had more than 34 percent of 
students performing at or above the Proficient level at 
grade 4. At grade 8, about 34 percent of public school 
students nationwide performed at or above the Proficient 
level. None of the 21 urban districts had a percentage of 
students performing at or above the Proficient level that 
was higher than the national average. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Achievement gap. Achievement levels 

221.10, 221.12, 221.40, 221.60, and 221.80 

Related indicators: English Language Learners (indicator 12), 

Mathematics Performance (indicator 24), Reading and 
Mathematics Score Trends (indicator 25), International 
Assessments (indicator 26) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 139 


Indicator 24 

Mathematics Performance 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


The average 4th- and 8th-grade mathematics scores in 2013 were higher than 
the scores in aii previous assessment years, according to data from the Nationai 
Assessment of Educationai Progress. At grade 12, the average mathematics score 
in 2013 was higher than in 2005 but not measurabiy different from the score in 2009. 


The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 
assesses student performance in mathematics at grades 4, 
8, and 12. NAEP mathematics scores range from 0 to 
500 for grades 4 and 8. The framework for the 12th-grade 
mathematics assessment was revised in 2005; as a result, 
the 2005, 2009, and 2013 results cannot be compared 
with those from previous years. At grade 12, mathematics 
scores on the revised assessment range from 0 to 300. 


NAEP achievement levels define what students should 
know and be able to do: Basic indicates partial mastery of 
fundamental skills, and Proficient indicates demonstrated 
competency over challenging subject matter. NAEP 
mathematics assessments are administered periodically: 
prior to 2013, the most recent mathematics assessment 
data were collected at grades 4 and 8 in 2011 and at 
grade 12 in 2009. 


Figure 1. Average mathematics scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade students: Selected years, 1990-2013 


Scale score 



NOTE: Includes public and private schools. At grades 4 and 8, the National Assessment ot Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale ranges from 
0 to 500. Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group testing) for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 
1990 and 1992. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years, 
1990-2013 Mathematics Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 222.10. 


In 2013, the average mathematics scores for 4th- and 
8th-grade students were higher than the average scores 
in all previous assessment years. From 1990 to 2013, 
the average 4th-grade mathematics score increased by 
28 points, from 213 to 242. During that same period, 
the average 8th-grade score increased by 22 points. 


from 263 to 285. In 2013, the average mathematics 
score for 12th-grade students (153) was not measurably 
different from the score in 2009 but was 3 points higher 
than in 2005 (150), the first year the revised assessment 
was administered. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


140 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 2. Percentage distribution of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grode students across Nationai Assessment of Educotionoi 
Progress (NAEP) mathematics achievement ievels: Selected years, 1990-2013 


Percent 

100 

80 
60 
40 
20 
0 

Percent 

100 

80 
60 
40 
20 

0 

Percent 


Grade 4 



1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 

Grade 8 


2013 



1990 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 

Grade 1 2 



2005 


2009 


2013 


Year 

I Below Basic Q At or above Basic Q At or above Proficient 


NOTE: Includes public and private schocis. Achievement levels define what students should know and be able to do: Basic indicates partial mastery ot 
tundamental skills, and Proficient indicates demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter. In 2005, there were major changes to the tramework 
and content ot the grade 1 2 assessment and, as a result, seores trom 2005 and later assessment years oannot be compared with scores and results trom 
earlier assessment years. Assessment was not conducted tor grade 1 2 in 2007 and 201 1 .Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group testing) 
tor children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1990 and 1992. Detail may not sum to totals because ot rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Eduoation, National Center for Eduoation Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), selected years, 
1990-2013 Mathematics Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 222.1 2. 


In 2013, some 83 percent of 4th-grade students 
performed at or above the Basic achievement level and 
42 percent performed at or above the Proficient level 
in mathematics. While the percentage of students 
performing at or above the Basic level in 2013 was not 
measurably different from that in 2011, it was higher 
than the percentage in 1990 (50 percent). A higher 
percentage of 4th-grade students performed at or above 
Proficient in 2013 than in all previous assessment 
years. In 2013, some 74 percent of 8th-grade students 
performed at or above Basic and 35 percent performed 


at or above Proficient in mathematics. The percentages 
of students at or above Basic and at or above Proficient in 
2013 showed no measurable change from 2011, but they 
were higher than the percentages in all assessment years 
prior to 2011. The percentage of 12th-grade students 
performing at or above Basic in 2013 (65 percent) was not 
measurably different from the percentage in 2009 but was 
4 percentage points higher than in 2005. The percentage 
performing at or above Proficient (26 percent) was also not 
measurably different from the percentage in 2009 but was 
3 percentage points higher than in 2005. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education I4l 








Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 3. Average mathematics scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade students, by race/ethnicity: 1990, 2011, and 2013 



White Black Hispanic Asian/Paciflc Islander American Indian/ 

Alaska Native 


Scale score 



Grade 8 



White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacitic Islander 

Race/ethnicity 


265 


269 


American Indian/ 
Alaska Native 


I 1990 □ 2011 □ 2013 


t Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate). 

NOTE: Includes public and private schools. At grades 4 and 8, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale ranges from 
0 to 500. Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group testing) for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 
1990. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1 990, 201 1 , and 201 3 
Mathematics Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 222.10. 


At grade 4, the average mathematics scores in 2013 for 
White (250) and Hispanic students (231) were higher than 
the scores in 2011 (249 and 229, respectively). The 2013 
scores for Black (224) and Asian/Pacific Islander (258) 
4th-graders were not measurably different from the 2011 
scores. White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander 
students all had higher average scores in 2013 than in 
1990. At grade 8, the average scores in 2013 for Hispanics 
(272), Asian/Pacific Islanders (306), and American 
Indian/Alaska Natives (269) were higher than in 2011 
(270, 303, and 265, respectively). Prior to 2011, separate 
data for Asians, Pacific Islanders, and students of Two 
or more races were not collected at the school level. At 
grade 4, the average 2013 mathematics scores for Asians 
(259), Pacific Islanders (236), and students of Two or more 
races (245) were not measurably different from the scores 
in 2011. Similarly, at grade 8 the 2013 scores for Asians 


(309), Pacific Islanders (275), and students of Two or more 
races (288) were not measurably different from the scores 
in 2011. 

Closing achievement gaps is a goal of both national and 
state education policies. In 2013 and in all previous 
assessment years since 1990, the average mathematics 
scores for White students at all grade levels have been 
higher than the scores for Black and Hispanic students. 
Although the White-Black and White-Hispanic 
achievement gaps did not change measurably from 2011 
to 2013, there was some narrowing of racial/ethnic score 
gaps compared to the early 1990s. For example, the 
White-Black achievement gap at grade 4 narrowed from 
1990 (32 points) to 2013 (26 points), and the White- 
Hispanic achievement gap at grade 8 narrowed from 1992 
(28 points) to 2013 (22 points). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


142 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 4. Average mathematics scaie scores ot 4th- and 8th-grade students, by sex: 1990, 2011, and 2013 


Grade 4 



Male 


Female 


Scale score Grade 8 



Sex 

I 1990 □2011 □ 2013 

NOTE: Includes public and private schocis. At grades 4 and 8. the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale ranges from 
0 to 500. Testing accommodations (e.g.. extended time, small group testing) for ohildren with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted 
in 1990. 

SOURCE; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistios, National Assessment of Eduoational Progress (NAEP). 1 992, 201 1 , and 201 3 
Mathematics Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 222. 1 0. 


The average mathematics score in 2013 for male 4th-grade 
students (242) was higher than the score in 1990 (2l4) but 
not measurably different from that in 2011. For female 
4th-grade students, the 2013 score (241) was higher than 
the scores in both 2011 (240) and 1990 (213). The average 
mathematics score in 2013 for male 8th-graders (285) 
was not measurably different from the score in 2011 but 
was higher than in 1990 (263). For female 8th-graders, 
the 2013 score (284) was higher than in both 2011 (283) 
and 1990 (262). In 2013, the mathematics scores for male 
and female students had an apparent achievement gap of 
1 point at both grades 4 and 8. However, the achievement 
gap was not significant at grade 8. The 2013 gender gaps 
for grades 4 and 8 were not measurably different from the 
gaps in 2011 or 1990. 


Since 1996, NAEP has collected data regarding student 
English language learner (ELL) status for grades 4 and 
8. In 2013 and in all previous assessment years since 
1996, the average mathematics scale scores for non-ELL 
4th- and 8th-grade students were higher than their ELL 
peers’ scores. In 2013, the achievement gap between 
non-ELL and ELL students was 25 points at the 4th-grade 
level and 41 points at the 8th-grade level. At grade 4, this 
achievement gap was not measurably different from the 
gap in any assessment year since 1996. At grade 8, the 
achievement gap between non-ELL and ETL students in 
2013 (41 points) was not measurably different from the 
achievement gap in 2011, 2009, 2000, or 1996 but was 
higher than in 2007 (38 points), 2005 (37 points), and 
2003 (38 points). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 143 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 5. Average mathematics scaie scores of 12th-grade students, by sex and race/ethnicity: 2005, 2009, and 2013 



Male 


Female 


Sex 


Scale score 

300 


250 

200 

150 

100 

50 


157 161 162 


163 


175 172 



127 131~ 132 133 


138 141 


c 


134 


144 142 


White 


Black 


Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/ 

Alaska Native 

Race/ethnicity 


I 2005 □ 2009 □ 2013 

NOTE: Includes public and private schools. At grade 12, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 300. 
Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005, 2009, and 201 3 
Mathematics Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 222.10. 


At grade 12, the average 2013 scale scores for all racial/ 
ethnic groups were not measurably different from the 
scores in 2009. However, the average scores for all racial/ 
ethnic groups were higher in 2013 than in 2005, except 
the score for American Indian/Alaska Natives, which 
did not change measurably. For example, the average 
scores for Asian/Pacific Islander students increased 
from 163 in 2005 to 172 in 2013. In 2013, the average 
scores for Asians, Pacific Islanders, and students of Two 
or more races were 174, 151, and 155, respectively. The 
mathematics scale scores for White 12th-graders were 
higher than the scores for their Black and Hispanic peers 
between 2005 and 2013. There were no measurable 
changes in racial/ethnic achievement gaps during 
this period. 


Average mathematics scores in 2013 for 12th-grade male 
(155) and female (152) students were not measurably 
different from those in 2009. Scores in 2013 were higher 
than those in 2005 for both males and females. In 2005, 
2009, and 2013, the gender gap for 12th-grade students 
has remained at 3 points. The average scores for non-ELL 
12th-grade students in 2005, 2009, and 2013 were 
higher than their ELL peers’ scores in these years. The 
achievement gap between non-ELL and ELL students 
was 46 points in 2013 and has widened by 15 points 
since 2005. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


144 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 6. Change in average mathematics scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade public school students, by state: 
Between 2011 and 2013 



^ Gain (15) No change (36) Q Loss (0) 


Rl 



I Gain (6) 


[El No change (42) Q Loss (3) 


NOTE: At grades 4 and 8, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. “Gain" is defined as a significant 
increase from 201 1 to 201 3, "No Change" is defined as no significant change from 201 1 to 201 3. and "Loss" is defined as a significant decrease from 201 1 
to 2013. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 201 1 and 201 3 
Mathematics Assessments, NAEP Data Explorer. See Digest of Education Statistics 20 M, tables 222.50 and 222.60. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 145 


NAEP results also permit state-level comparisons of 
the mathematics achievement of 4th- and 8th-grade 
students in public schools. The average mathematics 
scores for 4th-grade public school students were higher 
in 2013 than in 2011 in the District of Columbia and 
14 states (Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, 
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 

Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming); 
however, scores did not change measurably in any other 
state during this period. At grade 8, scores were higher in 
2013 than in 2011 in the District of Columbia and live 
states (Florida, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, 
and Tennessee); however, scores decreased in three states 
(Montana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota). 


Figure 7. Average mathematics scale scores of 4th- and 8th-grade public school students, by jurisdiction: 2013 


Jurisdiction 

Grade 4 

Grade 8 

Nation (public) 

241 

284 

Large city 

4 235 

4 276 

Albuquerque 

# 235 

274 

Atlanta 

4 233 

267 

Austin 

■f 245 

♦ 285 

Baltimore City 

^r 223 

4 260 

Boston 

237 

4 283 

Charlotte 

# 247 

289 

Chicago 

231 

269 

Cleveland 

4 216 

4 253 

Dallas 

^r 234 

# 275 

Detroit 

4 204 

240 

District of Columbia (DCPS) 

4 229 

4 260 

Fresno 

4 220 

4 260 

Hillsborough County (FL) 

4 243 

^ 284 

Houston 

# 236 

280 

Jefferson County (KY) 

234 

273 

Los Angeles 

^r 228 

4 264 

Mloml-Dode 

-1- 237 

4 274 

Milwaukee 

4 221 

257 

New York City 

236 

-f- 274 

Philadelphia 

^r 223 

4 266 

Son Diego 

4 241 

4 277 


Higher average Lower average ♦ No significant difference 

score than nationai score than national between urban district 

average score average soore and national average score 


NOTE: At grades 4 and 8, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500. "Large city" includes students from 
all cities in the nation with populations of 250,000 or more, including the participating districts. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (201 3). The Nation's Report Card: A First Look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading 
Trial Urban District Assessment (NCES 2014'466), figure 2. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 222.80. 


NAEP also collects data for Trial Urban Districts at 
grades 4 and 8. The Trial Urban District Assessment is 
intended to focus attention on urban education and to 
measure the educational progress of participating large 
urban districts. The results of the 21 urban districts 


are based on the same mathematics assessment used to 
report national and state results. This allows each district 
to compare its performance to the performance of its 
home state as well as to that of other states and other 
participating urban districts. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


146 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


In 2013, the 4th-grade large city average score (235) was 
lower than the national average score (241). Additionally, 
students in 17 urban districts had scores lower than 
the national average, while 2 had scores that were not 
measurably different. In contrast, students in two urban 
districts (Austin and Charlotte) had scores higher than 
the national average. Similarly, the 8th-grade large city 
average score (276) was lower than the national average 
score (284). Students in 17 urban districts had scores 
lower than the national average, while 3 had scores that 
were not measurably different. In contrast, students in 
Charlotte scored higher than the national average. 

In 2013, fourth-graders in four urban districts (Atlanta, 
Chicago, the District of Columbia, and Los Angeles) 
performed better in mathematics than 4th-grade students 
in those cities did in 2011. Students in other participating 


urban districts showed no change. Eighth-graders in three 
urban districts (Charlotte, the District of Columbia, and 
Fresno) improved between 2011 and 2013. Students in 
Detroit saw a decline, while all other participating urban 
districts showed no change. 

In terms of proficiency, 41 percent of 4th-grade public 
school students nationwide performed at or above the 
Proficient \tyt\ in mathematics in 2013. Compared 
with this national average, two urban districts (Austin 
and Charlotte) had higher percentages of students 
performing at or above the Proficient achievement level. 

At grade 8, about 34 percent of public school students 
nationwide performed at or above the Proficient level. One 
urban district (Charlotte) had a percentage of students 
performing at or above the Proficient level that was higher 
than the national average. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Achievement gap. Achievement levels 

222.10, 222.12, 222.50, 222.60, and 222.80 

Related indicators: English Language Learners (indicator 12), 

Reading Performance (indicator 23), Reading and Mathematics 
Score Trends (indicator 25), International Assessments 
(indicator 26) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 147 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Indicator 25 

Reading and Mathematics Score Trends 

NAEP long-term trend results Indicate that the average reading and mathematics 
achievement of 9- and 1 3-year-olds Improved between the early 1970s and 2012; 
however, only 1 3-year-olds made score gains from 2008 to 2012, and they did so in 
both subject areas. Average reading and mathematics achievement for 1 7-year- 
olds did not change significantly between the early 1970s and 2012 or between 
2008 and 2012. 


Since the 1970s, the long-term trend National Assessment Center for Education Statistics (NCES) publications since 

of Educational Progress (NAEP) has collected periodic the long-term trend assessment measures a consistent body 

information on the reading and mathematics achievement of knowledge and skills over an extended period, while 

of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds enrolled in public and private the main NAEP undergoes changes periodically to reflect 

schools. Long-term trend NAEP results may differ from current curricula and emerging standards.’ 
the main NAEP results presented in other National 

Figure 1. Average reading scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment ot Educational Progress (NAEP), 
by age: Selected years, 1971 through 2012 


Score 



I 


— I 1 1 1 1 

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 


1971 


1975 


1980 


1984 


1999 


2004 


2008 


2012 


Year 


Original assessment format 


- -Q - Revised assessment format 


NOTE: Includes public and private schools. NAEP scores range from 0 to 500. Several administrative changes were initiated beginning with the 2004 
assessment, including allowing accommodations for students with disabilities and for English language learners. To assess the impact of these revisions, two 
assessments were eonducted in 2004, one based on the original assessment and one based on the revised assessment. In 2008 and 201 2, only the revised 
assessment was used. 

SOURCE: National Center for Eduoation Statistics (201 3). The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012 (NCES 201 3-456). National Center for 
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. See Digest ot Education Statistics 201 3, table 221 .85. 


The national trend in reading achievement shows 
improvement at ages 9 and 13, but not at age 17, between 
the early 1970s and 2012. The average scores for 9- and 
13-year-olds in 2012 were higher than those in 1971 
(13 and 8 points higher, respectively), but the average 
score for 17-year-olds in 2012 (287) was not measurably 
different from the score in 1971. For 9-year-olds, the 


average score did not change measurably between 2012 
(221) and 2008, but it was higher in each of these years 
than in all previous assessment years. ^ Thirteen-year- 
olds scored higher in 2012 (263) than in all previous 
assessment years, including 3 points higher than in 
2008. The average score for 17-year-olds in 2012 was not 
measurably different from the score in 2008. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


148 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 2. Average mathematics scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational 
Progress (NAEP), by age: Selected years, 1973 through 2012 


Score 



Year 

Original assessment format - -Q - Revised assessment format 


NOTE: Includes public and private schools. NAEP scores range from 0 to 500. Several administrative changes were initiated beginning with the 2004 
assessment, including allowing accommodations for students with disabilities and for English language learners. To assess the impact of these revisions, two 
assessments were conducted in 2004, one based on the original assessment and one based on the revised assessment. In 2008 and 201 2, only the revised 
assessment was used. 

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics (201 3). The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012 (NCES 201 3-456). National Center for 
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. See Digest of Education Statistics 2073, table 222.85. 


The national trend in mathematics achievement shows 
improvement at ages 9 and 13, but not at age 17, between 
the early 1970s and 2012. The average scores for 9- and 
13-year-olds in 2012 were higher than those in 1973 
(25 and 19 points higher, respectively), but the average 
score for 17-year-olds in 2012 (306) was not measurably 
different from the score in 1973. For 9-year-olds, the 


average score did not change measurably between 2012 
(244) and 2008, but it was higher in each of these two 
years than in all previous assessment years. ^ Thirteen- 
year-olds scored higher in 2012 (285) than in all previous 
assessment years, including 4 points higher than in 
2008. The average score for 17-year-olds in 2012 was not 
measurably different from the score in 2008. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 149 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 

Closing achievement gaps is a goal of both national and 
state education policies. The results from the 2012 NAEP 
long-term trend assessments show some progress toward 
meeting that goal. For example, from the 1970s to 2012 


the White-Black and White-Hispanic score gaps in 
reading and mathematics narrowed as a result of Black 
and Hispanic students making larger gains in achievement 
during that period than White students. 


Figure 3. Average reading scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment ot Educational Progress (NAEP) 



200 


222 


226 Black 


— I 1 1 1 1 

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 


1971 


1975 


1980 


1984 


1999 


2004 


2008 


2012 


Year 

Original assessment format - -Q - Revised assessment format 


NOTE: Includes public and private schools. NAEP scores range from 0 to 500. Several administrative changes were initiated beginning with the 2004 
assessment, including allowing accommodations for students with disabilities and for English language learners. To assess the impact of these revisions, two 
assessments were conducted in 2004, one based on the original assessment and one based on the revised assessment. In 2008 and 201 2, only the revised 
assessment was used. 

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics (201 3). The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012 (NCES 201 3-456). National Center for 
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. See Digest of Education Statistics 201 3, table 221 .85. 


In reading, the White-Black and White-Hispanic reading 
gaps narrowed from the 1970s to 2012 at ages 9, 13, 
and 17, even though the average reading score of White 
students remained 21 or more points higher than the 
average scores for Black and Hispanic students in 2012. 
At age 13, Blacks and Hispanics both made larger gains 
in reading scores from the 1970s to 2012 than did White 
students, leading to a narrowing of the White-Black 
and White-Hispanic score gaps in 2012. From 1971 to 
2012, White 13-year-olds had a 9-point gain, and Black 


13-year-olds had a 24-point gain. Larger gains for Black 
than for White 13-year-olds during the period narrowed 
the White-Black gap from 39 points in 1971 to 23 points 
in 2012. Similarly, Hispanic students at age 13 had 
a 17-point gain in reading from 1975 to 2012, which 
narrowed the White-Hispanic gap from 30 points in 1975 
to 21 points in 2012. Hispanic 13-year-olds were the only 
racial/ethnic group to make reading score gains from 
2008 to 2012. The White-Hispanic gap for 13-year-olds 
narrowed 5 points from 2008 to 2012. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


150 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 4. Average mathematics scale scores on the long-term trend National Assessment ot Educational 



1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 2012 

Year 

— ■ — Original assessment format - -Q - Revised assessment format 


NOTE: Includes public and private schools. NAEP scores range from 0 to 500. Several administrative changes were initiated beginning with the 2004 
assessment, including allowing accommodations for students with disabilities and for English language learners. To assess the impact of these revisions, two 
assessments were conducted in 2004, one based on the original assessment and one based on the revised assessment. In 2008 and 201 2, only the revised 
assessment was used. 

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics (201 3). The Nation's Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 2012 (NCES 201 3-456). National Center for 
Eduoation Statistics, Institute of Education Scienoes, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. See Digest of Education Statistics 2013. table 222.85. 


In mathematics, the White-Black gap narrowed from 
the 1970s to 2012 at ages 9, 13, and 17, even though the 
average mathematics score of White students remained 
25 or more points higher than the average score for Black 
students in 2012. The White-Hispanic mathematics gap 
also narrowed from 1973 to 2012 at ages 13 and 17, but 
it did not change significantly at age 9. For example, 
average mathematics scores for 17-year-olds increased 
4 points for White students, 18 points for Black students, 
and 17 points for Hispanic students from 1973 to 2012. 


As a result, both the White-Black score gap and the 
White-Hispanic score gap for 17-year-olds narrowed 
14 points during this period. For 17-year-old students, 
the White-Black score gap narrowed from 40 points in 
1973 to 26 points in 2012, and the White-Hispanic score 
gap narrowed from 33 to 19 points over the same period. 
There were no significant changes, however, from 2008 to 
2012 in the White-Black or White-Hispanic score gaps for 
17-year-olds. 


Endnotes: 

' Several administrative changes, including the addition of 
allowing accommodations for students with disabilities and 
for English language learners, were initiated in the 2004 
long-term trend assessment and have been carried forward 
in more recent data collections. Despite these changes to 
the assessment, the trend analysis is still valid. 


^ Except in 2004 for the original unrevised assessment. 
Scores from the original and revised assessments are not 
directly comparable, and comparisons should be made 
with caution. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2013, tables Glossary: Achievement gap 

221.85 and 222.85 

Related indicators: Reading Performance (indicator 23), 

Mathematics Performance (indicator 24) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 151 


Indicator 26 

International Assessments 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Among 15-year-old students, 29 education systems hod higher overage scores than 
the United States in mathematics literacy 22 had higher average scores in science 
literacy, and 1 9 hod higher average scores in reading literacy, according to the 
2012 Program for Internotionol Student Assessment (PISA). 


The Program for International Student Assessment 
(PISA), coordinated by the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development (OECD), has measured 
the performance of 15-year-old students in mathematics, 
science, and reading literacy every 3 years since 2000. 

In 2012, PISA was administered in 65 countries and 
education systems, including all 34 member countries 
of the OECD. In addition to participating in the U.S. 
national sample, three states — Connecticut, Florida, 
and Massachusetts — opted to participate as individual 


education systems and had separate samples of public 
schools and public-school students included in PISA to 
obtain state-level results. PISA 2012 results are reported 
by average scale score (from 0 to 1,000) as well as by the 
percentage of students reaching particular proficiency 
levels. Proficiency results are presented in terms of the 
percentages of students reaching proficiency level 5 
or above (i.e., percentages of top performers) and the 
percentages of students performing below proficiency 
level 2 (i.e., percentages of low performers). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


152 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Table 1. Average scores of 15-year-old students on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 
mathematics literacy scale, by education system: 2012 


Education system 

Average score 

Education system 

Average score 

OECD average 

494 

O 

OECD average 

494 O 

Shanghai-CHN 

613 

O 

Lithuania 

479 

Singapore 

573 

o 

Sweden 

478 

Hong Kong-CHN 

561 

o 

Flungary 

477 

Chinese Taipei-CHN 

560 

o 

Croatia 

471 ® 

Korea, Republic of 

554 

o 

Israel 

466 ® 

Macao-CHN 

538 

o 

Greece 

453 ® 

Japan 

536 

o 

Serbia, Republio of 

449 ® 

Lieohtenstein 

535 

o 

Turkey 

448 ® 

Switzerland 

531 

o 

Romania 

445 ® 

Netherlands 

523 

o 

Cyprus 

440 ® 

Estonia 

521 

o 

Bulgaria 

439 ® 

Finland 

519 

o 

United Arab Emirates 

434 ® 

Canada 

518 

o 

Kazakhstan 

432 ® 

Poland 

518 

o 

Thailand 

427 ® 

Belgium 

515 

o 

Chile 

423 ® 

Germany 

514 

o 

Malaysia 

421 ® 

Vietnam 

511 

o 

Mexico 

413 ® 

Austria 

506 

o 

Montenegro, Republic of 

410 ® 

Australia 

504 

o 

Uruguay 

409 ® 

Ireland 

501 

o 

Costa Rica 

407 ® 

Slovenia 

501 

o 

Albania 

394 ® 

Denmark 

500 

o 

Brazii 

391 ® 

New Zealand 

500 

o 

Argentina 

388 ® 

Czech Republic 

499 

o 

Tunisia 

388 ® 

France 

495 

o 

Jordan 

386 ® 

United Kingdom 

494 

o 

Colombia 

376 ® 

Iceland 

493 

o 

Qatar 

376 ® 

Latvia 

491 

o 

Indonesia 

375 ® 

Luxembourg 

490 

o 

Peru 

368 ® 

Norway 

489 




Portugal 

487 




Italy 

485 




Spain 

484 


U.S. state education systems 


Russian Federation 

482 


Massachusetts 

514 O 

Slovak Republic 

482 


Connecticut 

506 O 

United States 

481 


Florida 

467 ® 


O Average score is higher than U.S. average score. 

Average score is lower than U.S. average soore. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 2012 average score. The Organization for Economio Cooperation and Development (OECD) average is the average 
of the nationai averages of the OECD member oountries, with eaoh oountry weighted equally. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. All average 
scores reported as higher or lower than the U.S. average score are different at the .05 level ot statistical significance. Italics indicate non-OECD oountries and 
education systems. Results for Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts are for public schoci students only. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 201 2. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2013. table 602.60. 


In 2012, average scores in mathematics literacy ranged 
from 368 in Peru to 613 in Shanghai-CHN. The U.S. 
average mathematics score (481) was lower than the 
average for all OECD countries (494). Twenty-nine 
education systems and two U.S. states had higher average 
mathematics scores than the U.S. average score and 
nine had scores not measurably different from the U.S. 
score. The 29 education systems with scores higher than 
the U.S. average score were Shanghai-CHN, Singapore, 
Hong Kong-CHN, Chinese Taipei-CHN, the Republic of 
Korea, Macao-CHN, Japan, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, 
the Netherlands, Estonia, Finland, Canada, Poland, 
Belgium, Germany, Vietnam, Austria, Australia, Ireland, 


Slovenia, Denmark, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, 
France, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Latvia, and 
Luxembourg. Within the United States, Massachusetts 
(514) and Connecticut (506) had scores higher than the 
U.S. average. 

In addition to scoring above the U.S. average, 
Massachusetts scored above the OECD average. 
Connecticut scored above the U.S. national average, but 
its score was not measurably different from the OECD 
average. Florida’s average score (467) was below the U.S. 
national average. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 153 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 1. Percentage of 15-year-old students performing on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 
mathematics literacy scale, by selected proficiency level and education system: 2012 


Below Levels 5 

Education system level 2 and above 

OECD average 
Shanghai-CHN 
Singapore 
Chinese Taipei-CHN 
Hong Kong-CHN 
Korea, Republic of 
Liechtenstein 
Macao-CHN 
Japan 
Switzerland 
Belgium 
Netherlands 
Germany 
Poland 
Canada 
Finland 
New Zealand 
Australia 
Estonia 
Austria 
Slovenia 
Vietnam 
France 
Czech Republic 
United Kingdom 
Luxembourg 
loeland 
Slovak Republic 
Ireland 
Portugal 
Denmark 
Italy 
Norway 
Israel 
Flungaty 
United States 
Lithuania 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent 



Education system 

OECD average 
Sweden 
Spain 
Latvia 

Russian Federation 
Croatia 
Turkey 
Serbia, Repubiic of 
Buigaria 
Greece 
Cyprus 
United Arab Emirates 
Romania 
Thailand 
Qatar 
Chile 
Uruguay 
Malaysia 
Montenegro, Republic of 
Kazakhstan 
Albania 
Tunisia 
Brazil 
Mexico 
Peru 
Costa Rica 
Jordan 
Columbia 
Indonesia 
Argentina 


Below Levels 5 

level 2 and above 



0 20 40 60 80 1 00 

Percent 



U.S. state education systems 


Massachusetts 

Connecticut 

Florida 


0 20 40 60 80 1 00 

Percent 


■ Below level 2 

■ Levels 5 and above 

# Rounds to zero. 

I Interpret data with caution. The ooeffioient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

t Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 

• p < .05. Significantly different from the U.S. percentage at the .05 level of statistical significance. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 201 2 percentages of 15-year-olds at levels 5 and above. To reach a particular proficiency level, a student must 
correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students were classified into mathematics proficiency levels according to their scores. Exact cut scores are 
as follows: below level 1 (a score less than or equal to 357.77): level 1 (a score greater than 357.77 and less than or equal to 420.07): level 2 (a score greater 
than 420.07 and less than or equal to 482.38): level 3 (a score greater than 482.38 and less than or equal to 544.68): level 4 (a score greater than 544.68 
and less than or equal to 606.99): level 5 (a score greater than 606.99 and less than or equal to 669.30): and level 6 (a score greater than 669.30). Scores 
are reported on a scale from 0 to 1 ,000. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average is the average of the national 
percentages of the OECD member countries, with each country weighted equaliy. Italics indicate non-OECD countries and education systems. Results for 
Connecticut, Fiorida, and Massachusetts are for public school students only. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2012. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2013, table 602.60. 


PISA reports mathematics literacy in terms of six 
proficiency levels, with level 1 being the lowest and level 
6 being the highest. Students scoring at proficiency 
levels 5 and above are considered to be top performers 
since they have demonstrated advanced mathematical 
thinking and reasoning skills required to solve problems 
of greater complexity. The percentage of top performers 
in the United States was lower than the average of the 
OECD countries’ percentages of top performers (9 vs. 


13 percent). Percentages of top performers ranged 
from near 0 percent in Colombia and Argentina to 
55 percent in Shanghai-CHN. Twenty-seven education 
systems and two U.S. states had higher percentages of 
top performers in mathematics literacy than the United 
States. Massachusetts and Connecticut both had higher 
percentages of top performers (19 and 16 percent, 
respectively) than the United States (9 percent), while 
Florida had a lower percentage (6 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


154 The Condition of Education 2015 



A higher percentage (26 percent) of 15-year-olds in 
the United States scored below proficiency level 2 in 
mathematics literacy than the average of the OECD 
countries’ percentages (23 percent). Percentages of low 
performers ranged from 4 percent in Shanghai-CHN 
to 76 percent in Indonesia. Twenty-nine education 
systems and two U.S. states had lower percentages of 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 

low performers than the United States in mathematics 
literacy. The U.S. percentage of low performers was higher 
than the percentages for both Massachusetts (18 percent) 
and Connecticut (21 percent). The percentage of low 
performers in Florida (30 percent) was not measurably 
different from the U.S. percentage. 


Table 2. Average scores of 15-year-old students on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) science 
iiteracy scale, by education system: 2012 


Education system 

Average score 

Education system 

Average score 

OECD average 

501 


OECD average 

501 

Shanghai-CHN 

580 

O 

Russian Federation 

486 ® 

Hong Kong-CHN 

555 

o 

Sweden 

485 ® 

Singapore 

551 

o 

Iceland 

478 ® 

Japan 

547 

o 

Slovak Republic 

471 ® 

Finland 

545 

o 

Israel 

470 ® 

Estonia 

541 

o 

Greece 

467 ® 

Korea, Republio of 

538 

o 

Turkey 

463 ® 

Vietnam 

528 

o 

United Arab Emirates 

448 ® 

Poland 

526 

o 

Bulgaria 

446 ® 

Canada 

525 

o 

Chile 

445 ® 

Lieohtenstein 

525 

o 

Serbia, Repubiio of 

445 ® 

Germany 

524 

o 

Thaiiand 

444 ® 

Chinese Taipei-CHN 

523 

o 

Romania 

439 ® 

Netherlands 

522 

o 

Cyprus 

438 ® 

Ireland 

522 

o 

Costa Rica 

429 ® 

Australia 

521 

o 

Kazakhstan 

425 ® 

Macao-CHN 

521 

o 

Maiaysia 

420 ® 

New Zealand 

516 

o 

Uruguay 

416 ® 

Switzerland 

515 

o 

Mexico 

415 ® 

Slovenia 

514 

o 

Montenegro, Repubiic of 

410 ® 

United Kingdom 

514 

o 

Jordan 

409 ® 

Czech Republic 

508 

o 

Argentina 

406 ® 

Austria 

506 


Brazii 

405 ® 

Belgium 

505 


Coiombia 

399 ® 

Latvia 

502 


Tunisia 

398 ® 

France 

499 


Aibania 

397 ® 

Denmark 

498 


Qatar 

384 ® 

United States 

497 


indonesia 

382 ® 

Spain 

496 


Peru 

373 ® 

Lithuania 

496 




Norway 

495 




Flungary 

494 




Italy 

494 


U.S. state education systems 


Croatia 

491 


Massachusetts 

527 O 

Luxembourg 

491 


Connecticut 

521 O 

Portugal 

489 


Fiorida 

485 


O Average score is higher than U.S. average score. 

® Average score is iower than U.S. average seore. 

NOTE: Edueation systems are ordered by 2012 average score. The Organization for Economio Cooperation and Deveiopment (OECD) average is the average 
of the national averages of the OECD member countries, with eaeh country weighted equally. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1 ,000. All average 
scores reported as higher or lower than the U.S. average score are different at the .05 level of statistical significance. Italics indicate non-OECD countries and 
edueation systems. Results for Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts are far public schoci students only. 

SOURCE: Organization for Eoonomic Oooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 201 2. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2013, table 602.70. 


In science literacy, average scores ranged from 373 in 
Peru to 580 in Shanghai-CHN. The U.S. average science 
score (497) was not measurably different from the OECD 
average (501). Twenty-two education systems and 2 
U.S. states had higher average science scores than the 
United States, and 13 systems and 1 U.S. state had scores 
that were not measurably different. The 22 education 
systems with higher scores than the U.S. average score 


were Shanghai-CHN, Hong Kong-CHN, Singapore, 
Japan, Finland, Estonia, the Republic of Korea, Vietnam, 
Poland, Canada, Liechtenstein, Germany, Chinese 
Taipei-CHN, the Netherlands, Ireland, Australia, 
Macao-CHN, New Zealand, Switzerland, Slovenia, the 
United Kingdom, and the Czech Republic. Within the 
United States, Massachusetts and Connecticut scored 
above the U.S. average. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 155 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 

In addition to scoring above the U.S. national average, score not measurably different from the U.S. average and 

Massachusetts (527) and Connecticut (521) also scored lower than the OECD average, 
above the OECD average. Florida (485) had an average 


Figure 2. Percentage of 15-year-old students performing on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 
science literacy scale, by selected proficiency level and education system: 2012 


Below Levels 5 

Education system level 2 and above 

OECD average 
Shanghai-CHN 
Singapore 
Japan 
Finland 
Hong Kong-CHN 
Australia 
New Zealand 
Estonia 
Germany 
Netherlands 
Korea, Republic of 
Canada 
United Kingdom 
Poland 
Ireland 
Liechtenstein 
Slovenia 
Switzerland 
Belgium 
Chinese Taipei-CHN 
Luxembourg 
Vietnam 
France 
Austria 
Czech Republic 
Norway 
United States 
Denmark 
Macao-CHN 
Sweden 
Italy 
Hungary 
Israel 
Iceland 
Lithuania 
Slovak Republic 

0 20 40 60 80 1 00 

Percent 



Education system 

OECD average 
Spain 
Croatia 
Portugal 
Latvia 

Russian Federation 
Buigaria 
United Arab Emirates 
Greece 
Cyprus 
Turkey 

Serbia, Republic of 
Qatar 
Uruguay 
Chile 
Thailand 
Romania 
Albania 

Montenegro, Republic of 
Malaysia 
Brazil 
Jordan 
Argentina 
Costa Rica 
Kazakhstan 
Mexico 
Colombia 
Tunisia 
Indonesia 
Peru 


Below Levels 5 

level 2 and above 



0 20 40 60 80 too 


Percent 


U.S. state education systems 



Massachusetts 

Connecticut 

Florida 


0 20 40 60 80 too 


Percent 


■ Below level 2 

■ Levels 5 and above 

# Rounds to zero. 

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

t Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 

• p < .05. Significantly different from the U.S. percentage at the .05 level of statistical significance. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 201 2 percentages of 15-yearolds at levels 5 and above. To reach a particular proficiency level, a student must 
correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students were classified into science proficiency levels according to their scores. Exact cut scores are as 
follows: below level 1 (a score less than or equal to 334.94): level 1 (a score greater than 334.94 and less than or equal to 409.54): level 2 (a score greater 
than 409.54 and less than or equal to 484.14): level 3 (a score greater than 484.14 and less than or equal to 558.73): level 4 (a score greater than 558.73 
and less than or equal to 633.33): level 5 (a score greater than 633.33 and less than or equal ta 707.93): and level 6 (a score greater than 707.93). Scores 
are reported on a scale from 0 to 1 ,000. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average is the average of the national 
percentages of the OECD member countries, with each country weighted equally. Italics indicate non-OECD countries and education systems. Results for 
Connecticut, Elorida, and Massachusetts are for public school students only. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2012. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2013, table 602.70. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


156 The Condition of Education 2015 



Similar to PISA’s reporting of mathematics literacy, PISA 
also reports science literacy by six proficiency levels, with 
level 1 being the lowest and level 6 being the highest. 
Students performing at levels 5 and 6 can apply scientific 
knowledge in a variety of complex life situations. The 
percentage of U.S. top performers on the science literacy 
scale (7 percent) was not measurably different from 
the average of the OECD countries’ percentages of top 
performers (8 percent). Percentages of top performers 
ranged from near 0 percent in eight education systems 
to 27 percent in Shanghai-CHN. Sixteen education 
systems and two U.S. states had percentages of top 
performers higher than the United States in science 
literacy. Massachusetts and Connecticut both had 
higher percentages of top performers (14 and 13 percent. 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 

respectively) than the United States, while Florida had a 
percentage that was not measurably different (5 percent). 

The percentage of U.S. students who scored below 
proficiency level 2 in science literacy was not measurably 
different from the average of the OECD countries’ 
percentages (both 18 percent). Percentages of low 
performers ranged from 3 percent in Shanghai-CHN to 
68 percent in Peru. Twenty-one education systems and 
two U.S. states, Massachusetts and Connecticut (11 and 
13 percent, respectively), had lower percentages of low 
performers than the United States in science literacy. The 
percentage of low performers for Florida (21 percent) 
was not measurably different from the percentage for the 
United States. 


Table 3. Average scores of 15-year-old sfudents on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading 
iiteracy scaie, by education system: 2012 


Education system 

Average score 

Education system 

Average score 

OECD average 

496 

OECD average 

496 

Shanghai-CHN 

570 O 

Iceland 

483 ® 

Hong Kong-CHN 

545 O 

Slovenia 

481 ® 

Singapore 

542 O 

Lithuania 

477 ® 

Japan 

538 O 

Greece 

477 ® 

Korea, Republic of 

536 O 

Turkey 

475 ® 

Finland 

524 O 

Russian Federation 

475 ® 

Ireland 

523 O 

Slovak Republic 

463 ® 

Chinese Taipei-CHN 

523 O 

Cyprus 

449 ® 

Canada 

523 O 

Serbia, Repubiic of 

446 ® 

Poland 

518 O 

United Arab Emirates 

442 ® 

Estonia 

516 O 

Chile 

441 ® 

Lieohtenstein 

516 O 

Thaiiand 

441 ® 

New Zealand 

512 O 

Costa Rica 

441 ® 

Australia 

512 O 

Romania 

438 ® 

Netherlands 

511 O 

Buigaria 

436 ® 

Switzerland 

509 O 

Mexico 

424 ® 

Macao-CHN 

509 O 

Montenegro, Repubiic of 

422 ® 

Belgium 

509 O 

Uruguay 

411 ® 

Vietnam 

508 

Brazii 

410 ® 

Germany 

508 O 

Tunisia 

404 ® 

France 

505 

Coiombia 

403 ® 

Norway 

504 

Jordan 

399 ® 

United Kingdom 

499 

Maiaysia 

398 ® 

United States 

498 

indonesia 

396 ® 

Denmark 

496 

Argentina 

396 ® 

Czech Republic 

493 

Aibania 

394 ® 

Italy 

490 

Kazakhstan 

393 ® 

Austria 

490 

Qatar 

388 ® 

Latvia 

489 ® 

Peru 

384 ® 

Flungary 

488 



Spain 

488 ® 



Luxembourg 

488 ® 



Portugal 

488 

U.S. state education systems 


Israel 

486 

Massachusetts 

527 O 

Croatia 

485 ® 

Connecticut 

521 O 

Sweden 

483 ® 

Fiorida 

492 


O Average score is higher than U.S. average score. 

® Average score is lower than U.S. average score. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 2012 average score. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average is the average 
of the national averages of the OECD member countries, with each country weighted equally. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1 ,000. All average 
scores reported as higher or lower than the U.S. average score are different at the .05 level of statistical significance. Italics indicate non-OECD countries and 
education systems. Results for Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts are for public school students only. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 201 2. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2013, table 602.50. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 157 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


In reading literacy, average scores ranged from 384 in Peru 
to 570 in Shanghai-CHN. The U.S. average score (498) 
was not measurably different from the OECD average 
(496). Nineteen education systems and 2 U.S. states had 
higher average reading scores and 1 1 education systems 
and 1 U.S. state had scores that were not measurably 
different. The 19 education systems with higher average 
scores than the United States in reading literacy were 


Shanghai-CHN, Hong Kong-CHN, Singapore, Japan, 
the Republic of Korea, Finland, Ireland, Chinese 
Taipei-CHN, Canada, Poland, Estonia, Liechtenstein, 
New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, 
Macao-CHN, Belgium, and Germany. Within the United 
States, Massachusetts and Connecticut, scored above the 
US. average. 


Figure 3. Percentage of 15-year-old sfudents performing on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 
reading literacy scale, by selected proficiency level and education system: 2012 


Below Levels 5 

Education system level 2 and above 

OECD average 
Shanghai-CHN 
Singapore 
Japan 
Hong Kong-CHN 
Korea, Republic of 
New Zealand 
Finland 
France 
Canada 
Chinese Taipei-CHN 
Belgium 
Australia 
Ireland 
Liechtenstein 
Norway 
Poland 
Netherlands 
Israel 
Switzerland 
Germany 
Luxembourg 
United Kingdom 
Estonia 
United States 
Sweden 
Macao-CHN 
Italy 

Czech Republic 
Iceland 
Portugal 
Hungary 
Spain 
Austria 
Denmark 
Greeoe 
Slovenia 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent 


IS 





13* 



L 

25* 

mi' 




~zr 

mi' 




1 18 * 

■ 7 ' 




17 * 

■ 8 ' 




rw 

wm 




\~w 

■D' 




nw 





rry 

■D' 




□I! 

■D' 




rry 

wm 




□2! 

mi 





mi' 




nr 

m 




IT 

wm 




E! 

n* 




IE 

lgl 




IE 





IE 

IgH 




s: 

igi 




[E 





E 

ra 




E 

E' 




E 

fsm 




E 





E 

■D' 




E 

Kiim 




E 

urn 




<£ 

mim 




C 

WEM 




C 





C 





<C 

WEM 




C 

la 




gi 





0! 

isum 




01 


Education system 


OECD average 
Russian Federation 
Vietnam 
Croatia 
Slovak Republic 
Turkey 
Buigaria 
Latvia 
Cyprus 
Lithuania 
Serbia, Repubiic of 
United Arab Emirates 
Qatar 
Romania 
Aibania 

Montenegro. Repubiic of 
Uruguay 
Thaiiand 
Chile 
Costa Rica 
Argentina 
Brazii 
Peru 
Mexico 
Coiombia 
Tunisia 
Jordan 
Maiaysia 
indonesia 
Kazakhstan 


Below Levels 5 

level 2 and above 



0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent 


U.S. state education systems 


Massachusetts 

Connecticut 

Fiorida 



m* 




16* 

lEl 




15* 

um 




6* 


20 40 60 80 

Percent 


100 


■ Below level 2 

■ Levels 5 and above 

# Rounds to zero. 

! Interpret data with caution. The ooetficient ot variation (CV) tor this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

t Reporting standards not met. Either there are too tew cases tor a reliable estimate or the coetficient ot variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 

• p < .05. Signiticantly ditferent trom the U.S. pereentage at the .05 level ot statistical signiticance. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 201 2 peroentages ot 15-year<ilds at levels 5 and above. To reach a particular proticiency level, a student must 
correctly answer a majority ot items at that level. Students were classitied into reading proticiency levels according to their scores. Exact cut scores are as 
tollows: below level 1 b (a score less than or equal to 262.04): level 1 b (a score greater than 262.04 and less than or equal to 334.75): level 1 a (a score greater 
than 334.75 and less than or equal to 407.47): level 2 (a score greater than 407.47 and less than or equal to 480.18): level 3 (a score greater than 480.18 
and less than or equal to 552.98): level 4 (a score greater than 552.98 and less than or equal to 625.61 ): level 5 (a score greater than 625.61 and less than 
or equal to 698.32): and level 6 (a score greater than 698.32). Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1 ,000. The Organization tor Economic Cooperation 
and Development (OECD) average is the average ot the national percentages ot the OECD member countries, with each country weighted equally. Italics 
indicate non-OECD countries and education systems. Results tor Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts are tor public school students only. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2012. See Digest of 
Education Statistics 2013, table 602.50. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


158 The Condition of Education 2015 



Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


In reading, Massachusetts (527) and Connecticut (521) 
scored above both the U.S. national average and the 
OECD average. Florida had an average reading score 
(492) that was not measurably different from either the 
U.S. average or the OECD average. 

PISA reports reading literacy by seven proficiency 
levels, with level lb being the lowest and level 6 being 
the highest. At levels 5 and 6, students have mastered 
sophisticated reading skills required to interpret and 
evaluate deeply embedded or abstract text. The percentage 
of U.S. top performers on the reading literacy scale 
was not measurably different from the average of the 
OECD countries’ percentages of top performers (both 
8 percent). Percentages of top performers ranged from 
near 0 percent in three education systems to 25 percent 
in Shanghai-CHN. Fourteen education systems and 
two U.S. states had percentages of top performers higher 
than the United States in reading literacy. Massachusetts 
and Connecticut both had higher percentages of top 
performers (16 and 15 percent, respectively) than the 
United States, while Florida had a lower percentage 
(6 percent). 

The percentage of U.S. students who were low performers 
in reading literacy was not measurably different from 
the average of the OECD countries’ percentages of 
low performers (17 and 18 percent, respectively). 
Percentages of low performers ranged from 3 percent in 
Shanghai-CHN to 60 percent in Peru. Fourteen education 
systems and one U.S. state had lower percentages of low 
performers than the United States in reading literacy. 
Massachusetts had a lower percentage (1 1 percent) than 
the United States, while Connecticut and Florida both 


had percentages that were not measurably different (13 
and 17 percent, respectively). 

The United States also participates in the Trends in 
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 
and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 
(PIRLS). Both assessments are coordinated by the TIMSS 
& PIRLS International Study Center at Boston College, 
under the auspices of the International Association for 
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (lEA), an 
international organization of national research institutions 
and governmental research agencies. TIMSS assesses 
mathematics and science knowledge and skills at grades 4 
and 8, and PIRLS assesses reading literacy at grade 4. 

In 2011, there were 57 education systems that had TIMSS 
mathematics and science data at grade 4 and 56 education 
systems that had these data at grade 8. Education systems 
include countries (complete, independent, and political 
entities) and other benchmarking education systems 
(portions of a country, nation, kingdom, or emirate, or 
other non-national entities). These benchmarking systems 
are able to participate in TIMSS even though they may 
not be members of the lEA. Participating allows them 
the opportunity to assess their students’ achievement 
and to view their curricula in an international context. 

In addition to participating in the U.S. national sample, 
several U.S. states participated individually and are 
included as education systems. At the 4th-grade level, two 
U.S. states (Florida and North Carolina) participated; at 
the 8th-grade level, nine U.S. states (Alabama, California, 
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, and North Carolina) participated. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 159 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Table 4. Average TIMSS mathematics assessment scale scores of 4th-grade students, by education system: 2011 


Grade 4 Grade 4 


Education system 

Average score 

Education system 

Average score 

TIMSS scale average 

500 


TIMSS scale average 


500 


Singapore’ 

606 

O 

New Zealand 


486 

® 

Korea, Republic of 

605 

O 

Spain 


482 

® 

Hong Kong-CHN ’ 

602 

o 

Romania 


482 

® 

Chinese Taipei-CHN 

591 

o 

Poland 


481 

® 

Japan 

585 

o 

Turkey 


469 

® 

Northern ireland-GBR^ 

562 

o 

Azerbaijan''^ 


463 

® 

Beigium (Fiemish)-BEL 

549 

o 

Chile 


462 

® 

Finland 

545 


Thailand 


458 

® 

Engiand-GBR 

542 


Armenia 


452 

® 

Russian Federation 

542 


Georgia^'® 


450 

® 

United States' 

541 


Bahrain 


436 

® 

Netherlands^ 

540 


United Arab Emirates 


434 

® 

Denmark' 

537 


Iran, Islamic Republic of 


431 

® 

Lithuania''^ 

534 


Qatar' 


413 

® 

Portugal 

532 


Saudi Arabia 


410 

® 

Germany 

528 

® 

Oman* * 


385 

® 

Ireland 

527 

® 

Tunisia* 


359 

® 

Serbia, Republic of 

516 

® 

Kuwait*'' 


342 

® 

Australia 

516 

® 

Morocco' 


335 

® 

Flungaty 

515 

® 

Yemen' 


248 

® 

Slovenia 

513 

® 





Czech Republic 

511 

® 





Austria 

508 

® 

Benchmarking education systems 



Italy 

508 

® 

North Caroiina-USA'’^ 


554 


Slovak Republic 

507 

® 

Fiorida-USA^-^ 


545 


Sweden 

504 

® 

Quebec-CAN 


533 

® 

Kazakhstan' 

501 

® 

Ontario-CAN 


518 

® 

Malta 

496 

® 

Aiberta-CAN' 


507 

® 

Norway'* 

495 

® 

Dubai-UAE 


468 

® 

Croatia' 

490 

® 

Abu Dhabi-UAE 


417 

® 


O Average score is higher than U.S. average score. 

® Average score is lo\A/er than U.S. average score. 

’ National Defined Population covers 90 to 95 peroent of National Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

2 Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after replacement schools were included. 

^ National Target Population does not include all of the International Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

^ Nearly satisfied guidelines for sample participation rates after replaoement schools were included. 

® Exclusion rates for Azerbaijan and Georgia are slightly underestimated as some conflict zones were not covered and no official statistics were available. 

*The TIMSS International Study Center has reservations about the reliability of the average achievement score beoause the percentage of students with 
achievement too low for estimation exceeds 1 5 percent, though it is less than 25 peroent. 

^ The TIMSS International Study Center has reservations about the reliability of the average achievement score beoause the percentage of students with 
achievement too low for estimation exceeds 25 percent. 

® National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent, but at least 77 percent, of National Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 201 1 average score. Italics indicate participants identified and counted in this report as an education system 
and not as a separate country. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1 ,000, with the 
scale average set at 500 and the standard deviation set at 100. The TIMSS average includes only education systems that are members of the International 
Assooiation for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (lEA), which develops and implements TIMSS at the international level. "Benchmarking" education 
systems are not members of the lEA and are therefore not included in the average. All U.S. state data are based on public school students only. 

SOURCE: Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., and Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights From TIMSS 201 1: Mothemafics and Science Achievement 
of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context (NCES 201 3-009), table 3, data from the International Assooiation for the Evaluation of 
Educational Achievement (lEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 201 1 . See Digest of Education Statistics 2013, table 602.20. 


At grade 4, the U.S. average mathematics score (541) in 
2011 was higher than the TIMSS scale average (500). 

The United States was among the top 15 education 
systems in mathematics (8 education systems had higher 
average scores, and 6 had scores that were not measurably 
different), and the United States scored higher, on average, 
than 42 education systems. Seven education systems 
with average mathematics scores above the U.S. score 
were Belgium (Flemish)-BEL, Chinese Taipei-CHN, 


Hong Kong-CHN, Japan, Northern Ireland-GBR, the 
Republic of Korea, and Singapore. Among the U.S. states 
that participated at grade 4, both North Carolina and 
Florida had average mathematics scores above the TIMSS 
scale average. North Carolina score was higher than the 
U.S. national average; however, Florida’s score was not 
measurably different from the U.S. national average in 
mathematics. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


160 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Table 5. Average TIMSS science assessment scale scores of 4th-grade students, by education system: 2011 


Grade 4 Grade 4 


Education system 

Average score 

Eduoation system 

Average soore 

TIMSS scale average 

500 


TIMSS scale average 


500 


Korea, Republic ot 

587 

O 

New Zealand 


497 

® 

Singapore' 

583 

O 

Kazakhstan' 


495 

® 

Finland 

570 

o 

Norway^ 


494 

® 

Japan 

559 

o 

Chile 


480 

® 

Russian Federation 

552 

o 

Thailand 


472 

® 

Chinese Taipei-CHN 

552 

o 

Turkey 


463 

® 

United States' 

544 


Georgia^® 


455 

® 

Czech Republic 

536 

® 

Iran, Islamic Republic of 


453 

® 

Hong Kong-CHN ' 

535 


Bahrain 


449 

® 

Hungary 

534 

® 

Malta 


446 

® 

Sweden 

533 

® 

Azerbaijan'’® 


438 

® 

Slovak Republic 

532 

® 

Saudi Arabia 


429 

® 

Austria 

532 

® 

United Arab Emirates 


428 

® 

Netherlands^ 

531 

® 

Armenia 


416 

® 

England-GBR 

529 

® 

Qatar' 


394 

® 

Denmark' 

528 

® 

Oman 


377 

® 

Germany 

528 

® 

Kuwait®’® 


347 

® 

Italy 

524 

® 

Tunisia® 


346 

® 

Portugal 

522 

® 

Morocco’ 


264 

® 

Slovenia 

520 

® 

Yemen’ 


209 

® 

Northern ireiand-GBR^ 

517 

® 





Ireland 

516 

® 





Croatia' 

516 

® 

Benchmarking education systems 



Australia 

516 

® 

Eiorida-USA>‘ 


545 


Serbia, Republic of 

516 

® 

Aiberta-CAN’ 


541 


Lithuania' ^ 

515 

® 

North Caroiina-USA’ ^ 


538 


Beigium (Fiemish)-BEL 

509 

® 

Ontario-CAN 


528 

® 

Romania 

505 

® 

Quebec-CAN 


516 

® 

Spain 

505 

® 

Dubai-UAE 


461 

® 

Poland 

505 

® 

Abu Dhabi-UAE 


411 

® 


O Average score is higher than U.S. average score. 

® Average score is lo\A/er than U.S. average score. 

’ National Defined Population covers 90 to 95 peroent of National Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

2 Met guidelines tor sample participation rates only after replacement schools were included. 

^ National Target Population does not include all of the International Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

^ Nearly satisfied guidelines for sample participation rates after replaoement schools were included. 

® Exclusion rates for Azerbaijan and Georgia are slightly underestimated as some conflict zones were not covered and no official statistics were available. 

The TIMSS International Study Center has reservations about the reliability of the average achievement score because the percentage of students with 
achievement too low for estimation exceeds 1 5 percent, though it is less than 25 peroent. 

^ The TIMSS International Study Center has reservations about the reliability of the average achievement score beoause the percentage of students with 
achievement too low for estimation exceeds 25 percent. 

® National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent, but at least 77 percent, of National Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 201 1 average score. Italics indicate participants identified and counted in this report as an education system 
and not as a separate country. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1 ,000, with the 
scale average set at 500 and the standard deviation set at 100. The TIMSS average includes only education systems that are members of the International 
Assooiation for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (lEA), which develops and implements TIMSS at the international level. "Benchmarking" education 
systems are not members of the lEA and are therefore not included in the average. All U.S. state data are based on public school students only. 

SOURCE: Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., and Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights From TIMSS 2011: Mathematics and Science Achievement 
of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context (NCES 201 3-009), table 26. data from the International Association for the Evaluation of 
Educational Achievement (lEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 201 1 . See Digest of Education Statistics 2073, table 602.20. 


At grade 4, the U.S. average science score (544) was 
higher than the TIMSS scale average of 500. The United 
States was among the top 10 education systems in science 
(6 education systems had higher average science scores, 
and 3 had scores that were not measurably different). 

The United States also scored higher, on average, than 
47 education systems in 2011. The six education systems 


with average science scores above the U.S. score were 
Chinese Taipei-CHN, Finland, Japan, the Republic of 
Korea, the Russian Federation, and Singapore. Of the 
participating education systems within the United States, 
both Florida and North Carolina-USA scored above the 
TIMSS scale average, but their science scores were not 
measurably different from the U.S. national average. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 161 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Table 6. Average TIMSS mathematics assessment scale scores of 8th-grade students, by education system: 2011 


Grade 8 Grade 8 


Education system 

Average score 

Education system Average soore 

TIMSS scale average 

500 


TIMSS scale average 

500 

Korea, Republic of 

613 

O 

Chile 

416 ® 

Singapore' 

611 

O 

Iran, Islamic Republic cf" 

415 ® 

Chinese Taipei-CHN 

609 

o 

Qatar" 

410 ® 

Hong Kong-CHN 

586 

o 

Bahrain" 

409 ® 

Japan 

570 

o 

Jordan" 

406 ® 

Russian Federation' 

539 

o 

Palestinian National Authority'' 

404 ® 

Israel^ 

516 


Saudi Arabia" 

394 ® 

Finland 

514 


Indonesia" 

386 ® 

United States' 

509 


Syrian Arab Republic" 

380 ® 

Engiand-GBR^ 

507 


Morocco' 

371 ® 

Hungary 

505 


Oman" 

366 ® 

Australia 

505 


Ghana' 

331 ® 

Slovenia 

505 




Lithuania" 

502 




Italy 

498 

® 



New Zealand 

488 


Benchmarking education systems 


Kazakhstan 

487 

® 

Massaohusetts-USA'“ 

561 O 

Sweden 

484 

® 

Minnesota-USA“ 

545 O 

Ukraine 

479 

® 

North Carolina-USA^'' 

537 O 

Norway 

475 

® 

Quebec-CAN 

532 O 

Armenia 

467 

® 

Indiana-USA’" 

522 O 

Romania 

458 

® 

Colorado-USA" 

518 

United Arab Emirates 

456 

® 

Connecticut-USA 

518 

Turkey 

452 

® 

Florida-USA’" 

513 

Lebanon 

449 

® 

Ontario-CAN’ 

512 

Malaysia 

440 

® 

Alberta-CAN' 

505 

Georgia"'^ 

431 

® 

California-USA’" 

493 ® 

Thailand 

427 

® 

Dubai-UAE 

478 ® 

Macedonia, Republic of" 

426 

® 

Alabama-USA" 

466 ® 

Tunisia 

425 

® 

Abu Dhabi-UAE 

449 ® 


O Average score is higher than U.S. average score. 

® Average score is lower than U.S. average score. 

^ National Defined Population covers 90 to 95 percent of National Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

2 National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent but at least 77 percent of National Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

^ Nearly satisfied guidelines for sample participation rates after replacement schools were included. 

^ National Target Population does not include all of the International Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

® Exclusion rates for Georgia are slightly underestimated as some conflict zones were not covered and no official statistics were available. 

The TIMSS International Study Center has reservations about the reliability of the average achievement score beoause the percentage of students with 
achievement too low for estimation exoeeds 1 5 percent, though it is less than 25 percent. 

^ The TIMSS International Study Center has reservations about the reliability of the average achievement score because the percentage of students with 
achievement too low for estimation exceeds 25 percent. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 201 1 average score. Italics indicate participants identified and counted in this report as an education system 
and not as a separate country. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) scores are reported on a soale from 0 to 1 ,000, with the 
soale average set at 500 and the standard deviation set at 100. The TIMSS average includes only eduoation systems that are members of the International 
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (lEA), which develops and implements TIMSS at the international level. "Benchmarking" education 
systems are not members of the lEA and are therefore not inoluded in the average. All U.S. state data are based on public school students only. 

SOURCE; Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D.. Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., and Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights From TIMSS 201 1 : Mathematics and Science Achievement 
of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an Internationai Context (NCES 201 3-009), table 4, data from the International Association for the Evaluation of 
Educational Achievement (lEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 201 1 . See Digest of Education Statistics 2073, table 602.30. 


At grade 8, the U.S. average mathematics score (509) 
was higher than the TIMSS scale average of 500. The 
United States was among the top 24 education systems 
in mathematics in 2011 (11 education systems had higher 
average scores, and 12 had scores that were not measurably 
different). In addition, the United States scored higher, 
on average, than 32 education systems. The 1 1 education 
systems with average mathematics scores above the U.S. 
score were Chinese Taipei-CHN, Hong Kong-CHN, 
Japan, Quebec-CAN, the Republic of Korea, the Russian 
Federation, Singapore, and, within the United States, 
Indiana-USA, Massachusetts, Minnesota-USA, and North 
Carolina-USA. 


In addition to scoring above the U.S. average in 
8th-grade mathematics, Indiana-USA, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota-USA, and North Carolina-USA also scored 
above the TIMSS scale average. Colorado-USA, 
Connecticut, and Florida scored above the TIMSS scale 
average, but their scores were not measurably different 
from the U.S. national average. California-USA’s score 
was not measurably different from the TIMSS scale 
average, but it was below the U.S. national average; 
Alabama-USA scored below both the TIMSS scale average 
and the U.S. national average in mathematics. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


162 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Table 7. Average TIMSS science assessment scale scores of 8th-grade students, by education system: 2011 


Grade 8 Grade 8 


Education system 

Average score 

Education system Average score 

TIMSS scale average 

500 


TIMSS scale average 

500 

Singapore' 

590 

O 

Saudi Arabia 

436 ® 

Chinese Taipei-CHN 

564 

O 

Malaysia 

426 ® 

Korea, Republic of 

560 

o 

Syrian Arab Republic 

426 ® 

Japan 

558 

o 

Palestinian National Authority 

420 ® 

Finland 

552 

o 

Georgia"'^ 

420 ® 

Slovenia 

543 

o 

Oman 

420 ® 

Russian Federation' 

542 

o 

Qatar 

419 ® 

Hong Kong-CHN 

535 

o 

Macedonia, Republic of 

407 ® 

Engiand-GBR^ 

533 


Lebanon 

406 ® 

United States' 

525 


Indonesia 

406 ® 

Flungary 

522 


Morocco 

376 ® 

Australia 

519 


Ghana* * 

306 ® 

Israel^ 

516 




Lithuania'* 

514 

® 



New Zealand 

512 




Sweden 

509 

® 

Benchmarking education systems 


Italy 

501 

® 

Massach usefts-USA 

567 O 

Ukraine 

501 

® 

Minnesota-USA'' 

553 O 

Norway 

494 

® 

Alberta-CAN’ 

546 O 

Kazakhstan 

490 

® 

Colorado-USA^ 

542 O 

Turkey 

483 

® 

Indiana-USA'-' 

533 

Iran, Islamic Republic of 

474 

® 

Connectiout-USA’-' 

532 

Romania 

465 

® 

North Carolina-USA^-' 

532 

United Arab Emirates 

465 

® 

Fiorida-USA'-' 

530 

Chile 

461 

® 

Ontario-CAN’ 

521 

Bahrain 

452 

® 

Quebec-CAN 

520 

Thailand 

451 

® 

Caiifornia-USA’’-' 

499 ® 

Jordan 

449 

® 

Alabama-USA^ 

485 ® 

Tunisia 

439 

® 

Dubai-UAE 

485 ® 

Armenia 

437 

® 

Abu Dhabi-UAE 

461 ® 


O Average score is higher than U.S. average score. 

® Average score is lo\A/er than U.S. average score. 

’ National Defined Population covers 90 to 95 peroent of National Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

2 Nearly satisfied guidelines for sample partioipation rates after replaoement schools were included. 

^ National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent, but at least 77 percent, of National Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

National Target Population does not include all of the International Target Population defined by TIMSS. 

® Exclusion rates for Georgia are slightly underestimated as some oonflict zones were not covered and no official statistics were available. 

*The TIMSS International Study Center has reservations about the reliability of the average achievement score because the percentage of students with 
achievement too low tor estimation exceeds 1 5 percent, though it is less than 25 peroent. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 201 1 average score. Italics indicate participants identified and counted in this report as an education system 
and not as a separate country. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1 ,000, with the 
soale average set at 500 and the standard deviation set at 100. The TIMSS average includes only education systems that are members of the International 
Association for the Evaluation of Eduoational Achievement (lEA), which develops and implements TIMSS at the international level. "Benchmarking" education 
systems are not members of the lEA and are therefore not included in the average. All U.S. state data are based on public school students only. 

SOURCE: Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., and Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights From TIMSS 201 1: Mofhemofics and Science Achievement 
of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an Internationai Context (NCES 201 3-009), table 27, data trom the International Association for the Evaluation ot 
Educational Achievement (lEA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 201 1 . See Digest of Education Statistics 2013, table 602.30. 


At grade 8, the U.S. average science score (525) was higher 
than the TIMSS scale average of 500. The United States 
was among the top 23 education systems in science in 
2011 (12 education systems had higher average scores, and 
10 had scores that were not measurably different). The 
United States scored higher, on average, than 33 education 
systems. The 12 education systems with average science 
scores above the U.S. score were Alberta-CAN, Chinese 
Taipei-CHN, Finland, Hong Kong-CHN, Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Singapore, 
Slovenia, and, within the United States, Colorado-USA, 
Massachusetts, and Minnesota-USA. 


Aside from scoring above the U.S. average in 
8th-grade science, Colorado-USA, Massachusetts, and 
Minnesota-USA also scored above the TIMSS scale 
average of 500. Connecticut, Florida, Indiana-USA, 
and North Carolina-USA scored above the TIMSS scale 
average, but their scores were not measurably different 
from the U.S. national average. California-USA’s score 
was not measurably different from the TIMSS scale 
average, but it was below the U.S. national average; 
Alabama-USA scored below both the TIMSS scale average 
and the U.S. national average in science. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 163 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 4. Number of instructional hours per year for 4th-grade students, by country or education system and subject: 
2011 


Country or education system 


International average 

162 


650 

1897 

Armenia' 

139 

■ 54 I 

658 

1851 

Australia' 

230 

65 

713 



Austria 

146 

1 96 1 

566 

|808 

Azerbaijan" 

130 1 

61 1 

613 

|804 


1,008 


Bahrain' 
Belgium (Fiemish)-BEV “ 
Chile' 

Chinese Taipei-CHN ' 
Croatia^ 
Czech Republic 
Denmark'’^ 
Engiand-GBR' 
Finland 
Georgia'-^’^ 
Germany' 
Hong Kong-CHN'^ 
Hungary 
Iran, Islamic Republic of 
Ireland 
Italy' 
Japan 
Kazakhstan^ 
Korea, Republic of 
Kuwait''^ 
Lithuania^'^ 
Malta' 
Morocco' 
Netherlands'''^ 
New Zealand' 
Northern Ireland-GBR 
Norway' 
Oman' 
Poland' 
Portugal' 
Qatar' 
Romania 
Russian Federation' 
Saudi Arabia' 
Serbia, Republic of' 
Singapore' 
Slovak Republic 
Slovenia 
Spain' 
Sweden ' 
Thailand' 
Tunisia' 
Turkey 

United Arab Emirates' 

United States'-' 

Yemen' 

Benchmarking education systems 

Abu Dhabi-UAE' 
Aiberta-CAN’-^ 
Dubai-UAE' 
Florida-USA''^-^ 
North Carolina-USA’-^-^ 
Ontario-CAN' 
Quebec-CAN 



748 


]964 


786 


1,010 


161 I 


836 


1 1,228 


766 


547 


559 


3776 
□ 782 


3989 


677 


3863 


706 


1970 


139 


148 


163 


158 


148 


146 


150 


214 


150 


140 


121 


120 


133 


183 


174 


195 


168 


232 


157 


170 


157 


250 


185 


148 


542 


3779 


490 


3748 


625 


3863 


813 


540 


106 I 


3760 


31.059 


475 


3727 


63 


641 


3854 


78 


793 


] 1 ,085 


91 


650 


1891 


571 


582 


92 


576 


3779 

□ 789 


85 


723 


60 


456 




3649 


3928 


669 


1891 


fW 


822 


mn 


837 


31.040 

1 1,074 


im 


705 


3925 


72 


666 


55 I 


605 


3817 


120 


709 


64 


543 


3764 


]970 
□ 999 


162 


528 


135 I 


3940 


748 


3 1,068 


561 


592 


796 


5M49I 


507 


3660 



T 


“T 


T 


“T 


T 


“T 


T 


“T 


T 


“T 




100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 

Number of instructional hours 

Math □ Science □ Other^ 


See notes on next page. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


164 The Condition of Education 2015 


























































Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


^ Data for number of math, science, and/or total instructional hours are available for at least 50 peroent but less than 85 percent of students. 

2 National Defined Population covers 90 to 95 peroent of National Target Population defined byTIMSS. 

^ Exclusion rates for Azerbaijan and Georgia are slightly underestimated as some conflict zones were not covered and no official statistics were available. 

Data for instructional hours in science are not available. Other instructional hours oalculated by subtracting instruction hours in mathematics from total 
instructional hours. 

® National Target Population does not include all of the International Target Population defined byTIMSS. 

* Met guidelines for sample partioipation rates only after replacement schools were included. 

^ National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent, but at least 77 percent, of National Target Population defined byTIMSS. 

® Other instructional hours calculated by adding instructional hours in mathematics to instructional hours in soience and then subtracting from total 
instructional hours. 

NOTE: Italics indicate participants identified and counted in this report as an education system and not as a separate country. Instructional times shown in 
this table are actual or implemented times (as opposed to intended times prescribed by the curriculum). Principals reported total instructional hours per day 
and school days per year. Total instructional hours per year were calculated by multiplying the number of school days per year by the number of instructional 
hours per day.Teaohers reported instructional hours per week in mathematics and science. Instructional hours per year in mathematics and science were 
calculated by dividing weekly instructional hours by the number of school days per week and then multiplying by the number of school days per year. 
International average instructional hours includes only education systems that are members of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational 
Achievement (lAE), which develops and implements TIMSS at the international level. "Benchmarking" education systems are not members of the lEA and are 
therefore not included in the average. All U.S. state data are based on public school students only. 

SOURCE: Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, R, and Arora, A. (201 2). TIMSS 201 1 Internationol Results In Mathematics, exhibit 8.6, and Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Foy, P, 
and Stanoo, G.M. (2012). TIMSS 201 1 International Results in Science, exhibit 8.6. See Digest of Education Statistics 2013, table 602.20. 


In addition to assessing achievement in mathematics 
and science, TIMSS collects information from principals 
on the total number of annual instructional hours in 
school. TIMSS also collects information from teachers 
on the number of annual instructional hours spent on 
mathematics and science instruction at grades 4 and 8. 

In 2011, education systems (excluding the benchmarking 
participants) participating in TIMSS at grade 4 spent 
an average of 897 total hours on instructional time, of 
which an average of 162 hours (18 percent) were spent on 


mathematics instruction and 85 hours (9 percent) were 
spent on science instruction. In 2011, the average number 
of total instructional hours (1,078 hours) spent in the 
United States at grade 4 was higher than the international 
average (897 hours). The average numbers of instructional 
hours spent on grade 4 mathematics instruction (206 
hours) and science instruction (105 hours) in the United 
States were also higher than the international averages 
(162 and 85 hours, respectively). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 165 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Figure 5. Number of instructional hours per year for 8th-grade students, by country or education system and subject: 
2011 


Country or education system 
International average 
Armenia' 
Australia' 
Bahrain' 
Chile' 

Chinese Taipei-CHN 
England-GBR’-^ 
Finland' 
Geargia'-^'’ 
Ghana' 
Hong Kong-CHN’ 
Hungary 
Indanesia' 
Iran, Islamic Republic cf 
Israel''® 
Italy 
Japan 
Jordan 
Kazakhstan 
Korea, Republic of 
Lebanon''® 
Lithuania''® 
Macedonia, Republic of 
Malaysia' 
Morocco ' 
New Zealand' 
Norway 
Oman' 

Palestinian Nationai Authority’ 
Qatar' 
Romania 
Russian Federation® 
Saudi Arabia' 
Singapore® 
Slovenia 
Sweden ' 
Syrian Arab Republic' 
Thailand' 
Tunisia' 
Turkey 
Ukraine 
United Arab Emirates' 
United States' ®'® 
Benchmarking education systems 
Abu Dhabi-UAE’ 
Alabama-USA’ ^ 
Alberta-CAN’-^ 
Caiifornia-USA'-^‘-^ 
Coiorado-USA”> 
Connecticut-USA’-^'^ 
Dubai-UAE' 
Fiorida-USA’-^‘-^ 
Indiana-USA’-^'’ 
Massaohusetts-USA’’^^ 
Minnesota-USA’-^ 
North Caroiina-USA’’^‘‘‘ 
Ontario-CAN’^ 
Quebeo-CAN’ 




102 


190 


198 


128 


1,245 


774 


3992 


639 


3934 


512 


1833 



780 


31.016 



— I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 


Number of instructional hours 
I Math □ Science □ Other’ 


See notes on next page. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


166 The Condition of Education 2015 

















































Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


’ Data for number of math and/or science instructional hours are available for at least 50 percent but less than 85 percent of students. 

2 Nearly satisfied guidelines for sample participation rate after replacement schools were included. 

^Target Population does not inolude all of the International Target Population defined byTIMSS. 

^ Exolusion rates for Georgia are slightly underestimated as some conflict zones were not covered and no offioial statistics were available. 

® National Defined Population covers less than 90 percent, but at least 77 percent, of National Target Population defined byTIMSS. 

* Data for instruotional hours in science were not available. Other instructional hours calculated by subtracting instruction hours in mathematics from total 
instructional hours. 

^ National Defined Population covers 90 to 95 percent of National Target Population defined byTIMSS. 

® Data for science are for 2007 and are from TIMSS 2007 International Results in Soience. Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after substitute 
schools were included. Data for number of math instructional hours are available for at least 50 percent but less than 70 percent of students. 

Other instructional hours calculated by adding instructional hours in mathematios to instructional hours in science and then subtracting from total 
instructional hours. 

NOTE: Instruotional times shown in this table are actual or implemented times (as opposed to intended times prescribed by the curriculum). Principals 
reported total instructional hours per day and school days per year. Total instructional hours per year were calculated by multiplying the number of sohool 
days per year by the number ot instructional hours per day.Teaohers reported instructional hours per week in mathematics and science. Instructional hours 
per year in mathematics and science were calculated by dividing weekly instructicnal hours by the number of school days per week and then multiplying 
by the number ot school days per year. International average instructional hours includes only education systems that are members of the International 
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (lAE), which develops and implements TIMSS at the international level. "Benchmarking" education 
systems are not members of the lEA and are therefore not included in the average. All U.S. state data are based on public school students only. 

SOURCE: Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, R, and Arora, A. (201 2). TIMSS 201 1 Internafionol Results In Mathematics, exhibit 8.7, and Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Foy, R, 
and Stance, G.M. (2012). TIMSS 201 1 International Results In Sc/ence, exhibit 8.7. See Digest of Education Statistics 2073, table 602.30. 


At grade 8, education systems (excluding the 
benchmarking participants) participating in TIMSS spent 
an average of 1,031 total annual hours on instructional 
time in 2011, of which 138 hours (13 percent) were spent 
on mathematics instruction and 158 hours (15 percent) 
were spent on science instruction. Similar to the findings 


at grade 4, the United States’ average number of total 
instructional hours at grade 8 (1,114 hours) was higher 
than the international average (1,031 hours). The average 
hours spent on grade 8 mathematics instruction (157 
hours) in the United States was also higher than the 
international average (138 hours). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 167 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Table 8. Average PIRLS reading literacy assessment scale scores ct 4th-grade students, by education system: 2011 



Overall 


Overall 


reading 


reading 


average 


average 

Education system 

scale score 

Eduoation system 

soale score 

PIRLS scale average 

500 

PIRLS scale average 

500 

Hong Kong-CHN ’ 

571 O 

France 

520 ® 

Russian Federation 

568 O 

Spain 

513 ® 

Finland 

568 O 

Norway® 

507 ® 

Singapore^ 

567 O 

Belgium (French)-BEC^ 

506 ® 

Northern Ireland-GBR^ 

558 

Romania 

502 ® 

United States^ 

556 

Georgia^'® 

488 ® 

Denmark^ 

554 

Malta 

477 ® 

Croatia^ 

553 

Trinidad and Tobago 

471 ® 

Chinese Taipei-CHN 

553 

Azerbaijan^® 

462 ® 

Ireland 

552 

Iran, Islamic Republic of 

457 ® 

England-GBR^ 

552 

Colombia 

448 ® 

Canada^ 

548 ® 

United Arab Emirates 

439 ® 

Netherlands^ 

546 ® 

Saudi Arabia 

430 ® 

Czech Republic 

545 ® 

Indonesia 

428 ® 

Sweden 

542 ® 

Qatar^ 

425 ® 

Italy 

541 ® 

Oman' 

391 ® 

Germany 

541 ® 

Morocco® 

310 ® 

Israel' 

541 ® 



Portugal 

541 ® 



Flungaty 

539 ® 

Benchmarking education systems 


Slovak Republic 

535 ® 

Florida-USA’“ 

569 O 

Bulgaria 

532 ® 

Onfario-CAN^ 

552 

New Zealand 

531 ® 

Aiberta-CAN^ 

548 ® 

Slovenia 

530 ® 

Quebec-CAN 

538 ® 

Austria 

529 ® 

Andalusia-ESP 

515 ® 

Lithuania^'* 

528 ® 

Dubai-UAE 

476 ® 

Australia 

527 ® 

Maitese-MLT 

457 ® 

Poland 

526 ® 

Abu Dhabi-UAE 

424 ® 


O Average score is higher than U.S. average score. 

® Average score is lower than U.S. average score. 

’ National Defined Population oovers less than 90 percent of National Target Population defined by PIRLS. 

2 National Defined Population covers 90 percent to 95 percent of National Target Population defined by PIRLS. 

^ Met guidelines for sample participation rates only after replacement schools were included. 

^ National Target Population does not include all of the International Target Population defined by PIRLS. 

® Nearly satisfied guidelines for sample participation rates after replacement schools were included. 

Exclusion rates for Azerbaijan and Georgia are slightly underestimated as some confliot zones were not covered and no official statistics were available. 

^The PIRLS International Study Center has reservations about the reliability of the average achievement score because the percentage of students with 
achievement too low for estimation exceeds 1 5 percent, though it is less than 25 percent. 

®The PIRLS International Study Center has reservations about the reliability of the average achievement score because the percentage of students with 
achievement too low for estimation exceeds 25 percent. 

NOTE: Education systems are ordered by 201 1 average score. Italics indicate participants identified and counted in this report as an education system and 
not as a separate country. The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1 .000, with the scale average 
set at 500 and the standard deviation set at 100. The PIRLS average includes only education systems that are members of the International Association for 
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (lEA). which develops and implements PIRLS at the international level. "Benchmarking" education systems are not 
members of the lEA and are therefore not included in the average. All U.S. state data are based on public school students only. 

SOURCE: Thompson, S., Provasnik, S., Kastberg. D.. Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S.. and Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights From PIRLS 2011: Reading Achievement of 
U.S. Fourth-Grade Students in an International Context (NCES 201 3-01 0). table 3, data from the International Association for the Evaluation of Eduoational 
Achievement (lEA). Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). 201 1 . See Digest of Education Statistics 2013, table 602.1 0. 


In 2011, there were 53 education systems that had PIRLS 
reading literacy data at grade 4. These 53 education 
systems included both countries and other benchmarking 
education systems. In addition to participating in the 
U.S. national sample, Florida participated individually 
and was included as an education system. In 2011, the 
U.S. average 4th-grade reading literacy score (556) was 
higher than the PIRLS scale average (500). The United 
States was among the top 13 education systems in reading 
literacy (5 education systems had higher average scores, 
and 7 had scores that were not measurably different). 


The United States scored higher, on average, than 40 
education systems. 

The five education systems with average reading scores 
above the U.S. score were Finland, Hong Kong-CHN, the 
Russian Federation, Singapore, and, within the United 
States, Florida. Additionally, Florida’s average score (569) 
was higher than the PIRLS scale average. No education 
system scored higher than Florida, although four had 
scores that were not measurably different. Forty-eight 
education systems scored lower than Florida. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


168 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Assessments 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2013, tables 
602.10, 602.20, 602.30, 602.50, 602.60, and 602.70 
Related indicators: Educational Attainment (indicator 1), 
International Educational Attainment (indicator 2), U.S. 
Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments 
of Educational Achievement [The Condition of Education 
2006 Special Analysis], U.S. Performance Across International 
Assessments of Student Achievement [The Condition of 
Education 2009 Special Analysis[ 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 169 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 


Indicator 27 

High School Coursetaking 

The percentages of high school graduates who had taken mathematics courses 
in algebra I, geometry, algebra ll/trigonometry, analysis/precalculus, statistics/ 
probability, and calculus increased from 7 990 to 2009. The percentages of high 
school graduates who had taken science courses in chemistry and physics also 
increased between 7 990 and 2009. 


In addition to administering student assessments, the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 
periodically collects data on the transcripts of high school 
graduates. The transcript survey gathers information 
about the types of courses that graduates from regular 
and honors programs take, how many credits they earn, 


their grade point averages, and the relationship between 
coursetaking patterns and achievement. The transcript 
data include information only about the coursework that 
graduates completed while they were enrolled in grades 9 
through 12. 


Figure 1. Percentage of high schooi graduates who compieted selected mathematics and science courses in 
high school: 1990 and 2009 


Percent 



Algebra P Geometry' Algebra 11/ Analysis/ Statistics/ Calculus' BIclogy' Chemistry' Physics' Biology and Biology, 

trigonometry^ pre- probability^ chemistry^ chemistry, 

calculus^ and 

physics" 


Mathematics 


Science 


H 1990 □ 2009 


’ Percentages are for students who earned at least one Carnegie credit. 

2 Percentages are for students who earned at least one-halt ot a Carnegie credit. 

^ Percentages are for students who earned at least one Carnegie credit each in biology and chemistry. 

Percentages are for students who earned at least one Carnegie credit each in biology, chemistry, and physics. 

NOTE: For a transcript to be included in the analyses, the graduate had to receive either a standard or honors diploma. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study (HSTS). 1990 and 2009. See Digest of Education 
Statistics 2072. table 225.40. 


The percentages of high school graduates who had 
completed mathematics courses in algebra I, geometry, 
algebra Il/trigonometry, analysis/precalculus, statistics/ 
probability, and calculus increased between 1990 and 
2009. For example, the percentage of graduates who had 


completed calculus increased from 7 percent to 16 percent 
between 1990 and 2009. Similarly, the percentage of 
graduates who had completed algebra 1 1 /trigonometry 
increased from 54 percent to 76 percent. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


170 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 


Between 1990 and 2009, the percentages of high school 
graduates who had taken various mathematics courses 
generally increased across subgroups. For example, the 
percentage of Hispanic graduates completing calculus 
increased from 4 percent in 1990 to 9 percent in 2009. 
Also, the percentage of Hispanic graduates completing 
algebra Il/trigonometry increased from 40 percent to 
71 percent. Similarly, the percentage of Black graduates 
completing calculus during this period increased from 
3 to 6 percent, and the percentage completing algebra II/ 
trigonometry increased from 44 to 71 percent. Although 
there were increases in mathematics coursetaking across 
racial/ethnic groups during this period, gaps between 
groups remained in terms of the percentages of graduates 
completing courses. For example, in 2009 higher 
percentages of Asian/Pacific Islander (42 percent) and 
White graduates (18 percent) had taken calculus than had 
their Black (6 percent) and Hispanic peers (9 percent). 

In 2009, there was no measurable difference between the 
percentages of males and females who had taken calculus 
(16 percent each). However, the percentage of females who 
had taken algebra Il/trigonometry (78 percent) was higher 
than that of male graduates (74 percent). 

The percentages of high school graduates who had taken 
science courses in chemistry and physics also increased 
between 1990 and 2009. The percentage of graduates who 
had taken chemistry increased from 49 to 70 percent, and 
the percentage of graduates who had completed physics 
courses increased from 21 to 36 percent. The percentage 
of graduates who earned at least one credit in biology, 
chemistry, and physics increased from 19 percent in 1990 
to 30 percent in 2009. 

The general increases in science coursetaking in biology, 
chemistry, and physics between 1990 and 2009 were 
reflected by increases for students of most racial/ethnic 


groups. For instance, the percentage of Hispanic graduates 
who had completed a chemistry course increased from 
38 to 66 percent, and the percentage of Hispanic 
graduates who had completed at least one credit in 
biology, chemistry, and physics increased from 10 to 
23 percent. Similarly, the percentage of Black graduates 
who had completed a chemistry course increased from 
40 to 65 percent, and the percentage of Black graduates 
who had completed at least one credit in biology, 
chemistry, and physics increased from 12 to 22 percent. 
Although there were increases in coursetaking among 
student groups from 1990 to 2009, gaps between different 
subgroups in coursetaking remained. In 2009, a higher 
percentage of Asian (54 percent) and White (31 percent) 
graduates had completed the combination of biology, 
chemistry, and physics courses than had their Black and 
Hispanic peers (22 percent and 23 percent, respectively). 

A higher percentage of males (39 percent) than of females 
(33 percent) had completed a physics class in 2009; 
however, a higher percentage of females (73 percent) than 
of males (67 percent) had taken chemistry. 

A higher percentage of 2009 graduates from private 
schools (85 percent) had taken courses in algebra II/ 
trigonometry than had graduates from traditional 
public schools (75 percent), and a higher percentage of 
graduates from private schools (23 percent) had taken 
courses in calculus than had graduates from public 
schools (15 percent). Also, a higher percentage of private 
high school graduates (44 percent) had taken at least 
one credit in biology, chemistry, and physics than had 
graduates from traditional public schools (29 percent). 

A higher percentage of graduates from city (32 percent) 
and suburban (39 percent) schools had taken courses in 
biology, chemistry, and physics than had graduates from 
schools in towns (19 percent) or rural areas (20 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 171 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 


Figure 2. Average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 12th-grade mathematics scale scores of 
high school graduates, by highest mathematics course taken and race/ethnicity: 2009 

Scale score 



Highest mathematics course taken 

I Total^ I White Q Black Hispanic Q Asian/Pacific isiander ^ American indian/Aiaska Native 


t Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reiiable estimate). 

’ includes basic math, general math, applied math, pre-algebra, and algebra I. 

2 Includes other racial/ethnic groups not shown separately and cases that were missing information on race/ethnicity and/or sex of student. 

NOTE: The scale of the NAEP mathematics assessment for grade 1 2 ranges from 0 to 300. For a transcript to be included in the analyses, the graduate had to 
receive either a standard or honors diploma. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Reporting standards were not met for American Indian/ 
Alaska Native estimates; therefore, data for this racial group are not shown in the figure. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Mathematics 
Assessment; and High School Transcript Study (HSTS), 2009. See Digest of Education Statistics 2012, table 222.40. 


In 2009, higher average scale scores on the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 12th-grade 
mathematics assessment were associated with higher levels 
of high school mathematics coursetaking. For example, 
graduates who had taken only algebra I or below had an 
average scale score of 114 (on a scale of 0-300), whereas 
graduates who had taken calculus had an average scale 
score of 193. In addition, among those students who 
had completed specific mathematics courses, there were 
differences across demographic subgroups. For graduates 
who had taken calculus, the average scale score was 
higher for males than for females (197 vs. 190). Average 


scale scores were also higher for students who had taken 
calculus who were Asian/Pacific Islander (203) and White 
(194) than for their Hispanic (179) and Black (170) peers. 
Among students who had taken calculus, the average scale 
score for those who had attended low-poverty schools 
(schools in which 0 to 25 percent of students receive, or 
are eligible to receive, free or reduced-price lunch under 
the National School Lunch Program) was 199, compared 
with a score of 163 for their peers at high-poverty schools 
(schools in which 75 to 100 percent of students receive, or 
are eligible to receive, free or reduced-price lunch). 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2013, tables 
222.40 and 225.40 

Related indicators: A Closer Look at High School Students 
in the United States Over the Last 20 Years {The Condition of 
Education 2012 Special Analysis] 


Glossary: Free or reduced-price lunch. Private school. Public 
school or institution 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


172 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 


Indicator 28 

Public High School Graduation Rates 


In school year 2011-12, some 3. 1 million public high schooi students, or 81 percent, 
graduated on time with a regular diploma. Among all public high school students, 
Asian/Pacific Islander students had the highest graduation rate (93 percent), 
foiiowed by Whites (85 percent), Hispanics (76 percent), and American Indians/ 
Alaska Natives and Blacks (68 percent each). 


Figure 1. Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) for public high school students: School years 1990-91 



1990 - 1995 - 1998 - 2004 - 2005 - 2010 - 2011 - 

91 96 99 05 06 11 12 

School year 


NOTE: The AFGR provides an estimate of the percentage of high school students \A/ho graduate within 4 years of first starting 9th grade. The rate uses 
aggregate student enrollment data to estimate the size of an incoming freshman class and counts of the number of diplomas awarded 4 years later. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/ 
Secondary Education," 1990-91 through 2009-10; "State Dropout and Completion Data File," 2005-06 through 201 1-12; Public School Graduates and Dropouts 
From the Common Core of Data, 2007-08 and 2008-09. See Digest of Education Statistios 2013, table 219.10. 


This indicator examines the percentage of public high 
school students who graduate on time with a regular 
diploma. The indicator uses the Averaged Freshman 
Graduation Rate (AFGR), which is the number of high 
school diplomas awarded expressed as a percentage of the 
estimated freshman class 4 years earlier. In school year 
2011—12, the AFGR was 81 percent, and some 3.1 million 
public high school students graduated on time with a 


regular diploma. The overall AFGR was higher for the 
graduating class of 2011-12 than it was for the class 
of 1990-91 (74 percent). However, from 1990-91 to 
1995-96 the graduation rate decreased from 74 to 
71 percent. During the period from 1998-99 to 2004-05, 
the rate steadily increased from 71 to 75 percent. After 
dropping to 73 percent in 2005-06, the graduation rate 
increased 8 percentage points to 81 percent in 2011-12. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


174 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 


Figure 2. Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) for public high school students, by roce/ethnicity: 
School year 2011-12 

Percent 


100, — 

93 



Total White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific American Indian/ 

islander Alaska Native 

Race/ethnicity 

NOTE: The AFGR provides an estimate of the percentage of high school sfudenfs who graduate within 4 years of first starting 9th grade. The rate uses 
aggregate student enrollment data to estimate the size of an incoming freshman class and counts of the number of diplomas awarded 4 years later. Race 
categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Includes only graduates whose race/ethnicity was reported. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center tor Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), ’NCES Common Core of Data State Dropout 
and Graduation Rate Data File," School Year 2011-12, Preliminary Version 1 a. See CCD table at http://nces.ed.aov/ccd/tables/AFGR081 2. asp . 


The AFGR varied by race/ethnicity in 2011—12. Asian/ 
Pacific Islander students had the highest graduation rate 
(93 percent), followed by Whites (85 percent), Hispanics 


(76 percent), and American Indians/Alaska Natives and 
Blacks (68 percent each). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 175 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 

Figure 3. Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) for public high school students, by state: School year 2011-12 


U.S. average: 81 percent 








0 


I I Less than 70 percent (2) 
I I 70 to 79.9 percent (20) 
1^ 80 to 89.9 percent (25) 
^ 90 percent or higher (4) 


NOTE: The AFGR provides an estimate of the percentage ot high schooi students who graduate within 4 years of first starting 9th grade. The rate uses 
aggregate student enroiiment data to estimate the size of an incoming freshman ciass and counts of the number of dipiomas awarded 4 years iater. Data 
were imputed for Texas in 201 1 -1 2. Some data have been revised from previousiy pubiished figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Nationai Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), 'NCES Common Core of Data State Dropout 
and Graduation Rote Data Fiie," School Year 2011-12, Preliminary Version 1 a. See CCD table at http://nces.ed.aov/pubs2014/2014391 /tables/table 04. as p. 


In school year 2011—12, the AFGR varied by more 
than 30 percentage points across the states. Nebraska 
and Vermont had the highest graduation rate, each 
at 93 percent. Two other states (North Dakota and 


Wisconsin) also had graduation rates of 90 percent or 
higher. In contrast, Nevada had the lowest graduation 
rate, at 60 percent, followed by Mississippi with an AFGR 
of 68 percent. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2013, table Glossary: High school diploma. Public school or institution 

219.10; and CCD Tables f http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ 

AFGR0812.asp l 

Related indicators: Educational Attainment (indicator 1), 

Status Dropout Rates (indicator 29) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


176 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 


Indicator 29 

Status Dropout Rates 

The status dropout rote decreased from 12 percent in 1 990 to 7 percent in 2013, 
with most of the deciine occurring since 2000. From 1990 to 2013, the Hispanic 
status dropout rate deciined from 32 percent to 12 percent, white Btack and 
White status dropout rotes decreased by 6 and 4 percentage points, respectiveiy. 
Nevertheiess, the Hispanic status dropout rate in 2013 (12 percent) remained 
higher than the White (5 percent) and Biock (7 percent) status dropout rotes. 


The status dropout rate represents the percentage of 
16- through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school 
and have not earned a high school credential (either a 
diploma or an equivalency credential such as a General 
Educational Development [GED] certificate).* This rate 
is different from graduation rate measures that reflect 
the percentage of students earning a regular diploma 
within 4 years of entering high school. Status dropouts 


are no longer attending school (public or private) and do 
not have a high school level of educational attainment. 
Based on data from the Current Population Survey, the 
status dropout rate decreased from 12 percent in 1990 
to 7 percent in 2013, with most of the decline occurring 
after 2000 (when it was 11 percent). However, there was 
no measurable difference between the 2012 rate and the 
2013 rate. 


Figure 1. Status dropout rotes of 16- through 24-yeor-olds, by sex; 1990 through 2013 


Percent 



Year 


NOTE: The ‘status dropout rote" represents the percentage of 16- through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled In school and have not earned a high school 
credential (either a diploma or an equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). Data are based on sample 
surveys of fhe civilian noninsfifufionalized populafion, which excludes persons in prisons, persons in fhe miiifary, and ofher persons nof living in households. 
SOURCE: U.S. Deparfmenf of Commerce, Census Bureau, Currenf Populafion Survey (CPS), October 1990 fhrough 2013. See Digest of Education Stafistios 2014, 
fable 219.70. 


Between 1990 and 2013, the male status dropout rate 
declined from 12 to 7 percent, with nearly the entire 
decline occurring after 2000 (when it was still 12 percent). 
For females, the rate declined from 12 percent in 1990 
to 10 percent in 2000, and then decreased further to 


6 percent in 2013. From 1997 through 2012, the status 
dropout rate was higher for males than for females, but in 
2013 the rate for males was not measurably different from 
the rate for females. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


178 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 

Figure 2. Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: 1990 through 2013 


Percent 



Year 

NOTE: The “status dropout rate" represents the percentage ot 16- through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school 
credential (either a diploma or an equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). Data are based on sample 
surveys of the civilian noninstitutionaiized population, which excludes persons in prisons, persons in the military, and other persons not living in households. 
Data for all races include other racial/ethnic categories not separately shown. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 1990 through 201 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 219.70. 


In each year from 1990 to 2013, the status dropout 
rate was lower for Whites than for Blacks, and the rates 
for both Whites and Blacks were lower than the rate 
for Hispanics. During this period, the rate for Whites 
declined from 9 to 5 percent; the rate for Blacks declined 
from 13 to 7 percent; and the rate for Hispanics declined 
from 32 to 12 percent. As a result, the gap between 
Whites and Hispanics narrowed from 23 percentage 
points in 1990 to 7 percentage points in 2013. Most of 
the gap was narrowed between 2000 and 2013, during 


which the White-Hispanic gap declined from 21 percent 
to 7 percent. The rates for both Whites and Blacks 
declined from 1990 to 2013, but the gap between the 
rates in 1990 did not measurably differ from the gap 
between the rates in 2013. However, the White-Black gap 
of 2 percentage points in 2013 (when rates were 5 and 
7 percent, respectively) was smaller than the White-Black 
gap of 6 percentage points in 2000 (when rates were 7 and 
13 percent, respectively). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 179 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 

Figure 3. Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds, by income levei: 1990 through 2013 


Percent 



Year 

NOTE: The “status dropout rate" represents the percentage ot 16- through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school 
credential (either a diploma or an equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). The "lowest" quartile represents 
the bottom 25 percent of family incomes. The “middle low" quartile represents tamilies between the 25th percentile and the median (50th percentile). The 
“middle high" quartile represents families with incomes between the median (50th percentile) and the 75th percentile. The "highest" quartile represents the 
top 25 percent of all family incomes. Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionalized population, which excludes persons in prisons, 
persons in the military, and other persons not living in households. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 1990 through 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 219.75. 


The status dropout rate also declined for young adults 
in low- and middle-income family groups between 
1990 and 2013. Status dropout rates declined from 

24 to 11 percent for those in families with the lowest 
incomes (the bottom 25 percent of all family incomes), 
from 15 to 9 percent for those in “middle low” 
income families (families with incomes between the 
25th percentile and the median), and from 9 to 5 percent 
for those in “middle high” income families (families with 
incomes between the median and the 75th percentile). 

For those in the highest income families (the top 

25 percent of all family incomes), there was no measurable 
difference between the 1990 and 2013 status dropout 
rates (3 percent in both years). During this period, the 


status dropout rates for those in the highest income 
families were consistently lower than the rates for those 
in all other income groups. Conversely, the rates for those 
in the lowest income families were consistently higher 
than the rates for those in the “middle high” and “middle 
low” income families, with the exception of 2013 when 
the rates between those in the lowest income families 
and those in the “middle low” income families were not 
measurably different. While differences between those in 
the lowest income families and highest income families 
have remained, the gap in the status dropout rate between 
these two groups narrowed from 21 percentage points in 
1990 to 8 percentage points in 2013. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


180 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 

Figure 4. Percentage distribution ot status dropouts, by years ot schooi compieted: 1990 through 2013 


Percent 



Year 

NOTE: "Status dropouts" ore 1 6- through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled In sohool and have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma or an 
equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). Data are based on sample surveys of the civilian noninstitutionaiized 
population, which excludes persons in prisons, persons in the military, and other persons not living in households. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 1990 through 2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, 
table 219.75. 


The decline in the overall status dropout rate coincided 
with a shift in the distribution of years of school 
completed by status dropouts from 1990 to 2013, as fewer 
status dropouts completed less than 9 years of schooling 
while more completed 11—12 years of schooling. The 
percentage of status dropouts with less than 9 years of 


schooling decreased from 29 percent in 1990 to 18 percent 
in 2013. Conversely, the percentage of status dropouts 
who had completed 11-12 years of schooling but did 
not receive a diploma or GED certificate increased from 
26 percent in 1990 to 47 percent in 2013. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 181 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 


Figure 5. Status dropout rates ot 16- through 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2012 


Percent 



Indian/ more races 

Race/ethnicity Alaska Native 

I Total I Male □ Female 

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) tor this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

NOTE: This figure uses a different data source than figure 2; therefore, estimates are not directiy comparable to the 2012 estimates in figure 2. 
Noninstitutionaiized group quarters inciude college and university housing, military quarters, facilities for workers and religious groups, and temporary shelters 
for the homeless. Among those counted in noninstitutionaiized group quarters in the American Community Survey (ACS), only the residents of military 
barracks are not included in the civilian noninstitutionaiized population in the Current Population Survey. The "status dropout rate" represents the percentage 
of 1 6- through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma or an equivalency credential 
such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SCURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 201 2. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 219.80. 


Based on data from the American Community Survey, 
which includes those living in households as well as 
noninstitutionaP living quarters, the status dropout 
rate in 2012 was lower for Asians (3 percent) and 
Whites (5 percent) than for those of Two or more 
races (6 percent), Blacks (9 percent), Pacific Islanders 
(9 percent), American Indians/Alaska Natives (13 percent), 
and Hispanics (13 percent). In 2012, the male status 
dropout rate (8 percent) was higher than the female rate 
(6 percent). This pattern of higher male status dropout 


rates was consistent across all racial/ethnic groups except 
for Asians and Pacific Islanders. Hispanics (5 percentage 
points), American Indians/Alaska Natives (4 percentage 
points), and Blacks (4 percentage points) had the largest 
observed male-female dropout rate gaps. The dropout rates 
for those living in households and noninstitutionaiized 
group quarters (7 percent) was lower than for those living 
in institutionalized group quarters (35 percent), such as 
prisons and residential health facilities. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


182 The Condition of Education 2015 



Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Student Effort, Persistence, and Progress 


Figure 6. Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds in the household and noninstitutionalized group quarters 
population, by race/ethnicity and nativity: 2012 


Percent 



Indian/ more races 

Race/ethnicity Alaska Native 

I Born in the United States Q Born outside the United States 
I Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

NOTE: This figure uses a different data source than figure 2; therefore, estimates are not directly comparable to the 201 2 estimates in figure 2. United 
States refers to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Marianas. The “status 
dropout rate" represents the percentage of 1 6- through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential (either 
a diploma or an equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). Noninstitutionalized group quarters include 
college and university housing, military quarters, facilities for workers and religious groups, and temporary shelters for the homeless. Among those counted 
in noninstitutionalized group quarters in the American Community Survey (ACS), only the residents of military barracks are not included in the civilian 
noninstitutionalized population in the Current Population Survey. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 201 2. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 219.80. 


Differences in status dropout rates between U.S. and 
foreign-born 16- to 24-year-olds living in households and 
noninstitutionalized group quarters vary by race/ethnicity. 
In 2012, Hispanics, Asians, and Pacific Islanders born 
in the United States had lower status dropout rates than 
did their counterparts born outside of the United States, 
whereas U.S. -born Whites and Blacks had higher status 
dropout rates than did their foreign-born counterparts. 


Among all racial/ethnic groups, the largest differences in 
status dropout rates by nativity are observed for Hispanics 
(16 percent points) and Pacific Islanders (14 percentage 
points). Native-born Hispanics and Pacific Islanders had 
status dropout rates of 9 and 7 percent, respectively, and 
foreign-born Hispanics and Pacific Islanders had rates of 
24 and 20 percent, respectively. 


Endnotes: 

' In this indicator, status dropout rates are estimated 
using both the Current Population Survey (CPS) and 
the American Community Survey (ACS). CPS data have 
been collected annually for decades, allowing for the 
analysis of detailed long term trends, or changes over 
time, for the civilian, noninstitutionalized population. 
ACS data from 2006 to 2012 cover individuals living in 
group quarters, including those in institutionalized and 
noninstitutionalized settings, and can provide detail on 
smaller demographic groups. 


^ Noninstitutional group quarters include college and 
university housing, military quarters, facilities for workers 
and religious groups, and temporary shelters for the 
homeless. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Dropout, GED certificate. High school diploma, 

219.70, 219.75, and 219.80 High school equivalency certificate 

Related indicators: Educational Attainment (indicator 1), 

Public High School Graduation Rates (indicator 28) 

For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 183 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Transition to College 


Indicator 30 

Immediate College Enrollment Rate 

The immediate coiiege enroiiment rate increased from 60 percent in 7 990 to 
66 percent in 2013; however, this rate has decreased in recent years— down from 
70 percent in 2009. In 2013, the immediate coiiege enroiiment rate for high schooi 
compieters from high-income families (80 percent) was 3 1 percentage points 
higher than the rate for those from iow-income famines (49 percent). The 2013 
gap between high schooi compieters from high- and iow-income famines did not 
measurabiy differ from the corresponding gap in 1 990 (30 percentage points). 


Of the 3.0 million high school completers in 2013, 
some 2.0 million, or 66 percent, enrolled in college the 
following fall. This rate, known as the immediate college 
enrollment rate, is defined as the annual percentage of 
high school completers (including GED recipients) who 
enroll in 2- or 4-year colleges in the fall immediately 


after completing high school. The immediate college 
enrollment rate increased from 60 percent in 1990 to 
66 percent in 2013; however, this rate has decreased in 
recent years — down from 70 percent in 2009. The rate 
did not change measurably between 2012 (66 percent) 
and 2013. 


Figure 1. Percentage of high schooi compieters who were enrolled in 2- or 4-yeor coileges by the October immediately 



1990 


1995 


2000 


2005 


2010 2013 


Year 


NOTE: High school completers include GED recipients. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 1990-2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2074, table 302.10. 


In each year between 1990 and 2013, the immediate 
college enrollment rate at 4-year colleges was higher 
than that at 2-year colleges. For example, in 2013, the 
immediate college enrollment rate at 4-year colleges 
was 42 percent, compared with 24 percent at 2-year 
colleges. The immediate college enrollment rate of high 
school completers at 2-year colleges in 2013 (24 percent) 
did not differ significantly from the corresponding 
rate in 1990 (20 percent). The rate fluctuated between 


20 and 25 percent in the 1990s, increased from 21 percent 
in 2000 to 29 percent in 2012, and then decreased 
5 percentage points between 2012 and 2013. At 4-year 
colleges, the immediate college enrollment rate in 2013 
(42 percent) was not measurably different from the rate in 
1990 or 2000 (40 and 42 percent, respectively), nor was 
the rate in 2013 measurably different from that in 2012 
(37 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


184 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Transition to College 

Figure 2. Percentage of high schooi compieters who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year coileges by the October immediately 
following high schooi completion, by sex: 1990-2013 

Percent 



year 

NOTE: High school completers include GED recipients. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce. Census Bureau, Current Populatian Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 1 990-201 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2014, table 302.10. 

The immediate college enrollment rate for male completers increased from 62 to 68 percent during this 

high school completers in 1990 (58 percent) was not time. In 2013, there was no significant difference between 

measurably different from the corresponding rate in male and female immediate college enrollment rates. 

2013 (64 percent), while the rate for female high school 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 185 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Transition to College 


Figure 3. Percentage of high schooi compieters who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year coileges by the October immediately 



1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 


Year 


NOTE: Due to some short-term data fluctuations associated with small sample sizes, percentages for income groups were calculated based cn 3-year moving 
averages, except in 201 3, when estimates were calculated based on 2-year moving averages. High school completers include GED recipients. Low income 
refers to the bottom 20 percent of all family incomes, high income refers to the top 20 percent of all family incomes, and middle income refers to the 60 
percent in between. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 1990-2013. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2074, table 302.30. 


In each year from 1990 to 2013, the immediate college 
enrollment rate for high school completers from high- 
income families was higher than the rates for their 
peers from low- and middle-income families.' In 2013, 
the immediate college enrollment rate for high school 
completers from high-income families (80 percent) was 
31 percentage points higher than the rate for those from 
low-income families (49 percent) and 15 percentage 
points higher than the rate for those from middle-income 
families (64 percent). The gap between the immediate 


college enrollment rates of high school completers from 
high- and low-income families in 2013 (31 percentage 
points) did not measurably differ from the corresponding 
gap in 1990 (30 percentage points). Similarly, the 
gap between the immediate college enrollment rates 
of high school completers from high- and middle- 
income families in 2013 (15 percentage points) was not 
measurably different from the corresponding gap in 1990 
(19 percentage points). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


186 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 3/Elementary and Secondary Education 
Section: Transition to College 


Figure 4. Percentage of high schooi compieters who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year coileges by the October immediately 



1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 


Year 


NOTE: Due to some short-term data fluetuations assoeiated with small sample sizes, pereentages tor raoial/ethnio groups were ealculated based on 3-year 
moving averages, except in 201 3, when estimates were calculated based on 2-year maving averages. For Asian data, the moving average for 2003 reflects an 
average of 2003 and 2004. High school completers include GED recipients. Separate data on Asian high school completers have been collected since 2003. 
From 2003 onward. White, Black, and Asian data exclude persons identifying themselves as Two or more races. Prior to 2003, each respondent could select 
only a single race category, and the ‘Twa or more races" category was nat reported. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 1 990-201 3. See Digest of Education Statistics 
2014, table 302.20. 


In 2013, the immediate college enrollment rate for high 
school completers who were White (67 percent) was higher 
than the rate for those who were Black (57 percent), but 
not measurably different from the rate for those who were 
Hispanic (66 percent).' The immediate college enrollment 
rate for Asians (81 percent) was higher than the rates 
for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in 2013 and in each 
year since 2003, when the collection of separate data on 
Asian high school completers began. The rate for Whites 
was higher than that for Blacks every year since 1990 
except 2010, when there were no measurable differences 


between their rates. Additionally, the immediate college 
enrollment rate for Whites was higher than that for 
Hispanics from 1994 through 2010. Between 1990 and 
2013, the immediate college enrollment rate increased 
for White (from 63 to 67 percent) and Hispanic (from 
52 to 66 percent) high school completers. The rate for 
Black high school completers in 2013 was not measurably 
different from the rate in 1990, and the rate for Asian high 
school completers did not change measurably between 
2003 and 2013. 


Endnotes: 

' Due to some short-term data fluctuations associated 
with small sample sizes, estimates for the income groups 
and racial/ethnic groups were calculated based on 3-year 
moving averages, except in 2013, when estimates were 
calculated based on 2-year moving averages. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Educational attainment (Current Population Survey), 

302.10, 302.20, and 302.30 High school completer 

Related indicators: Undergraduate Enrollment (indicator 14), 

Public High School Graduation Rates (indicator 28), Status 
Dropout Rates (indicator 29) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Elementary and Secondary Education 187 


The indicators in this chapter of The Condition of Education examine features of postsecondary education, many of 
which parallel those presented in the previous chapter on elementary and secondary education. The indicators describe 
characteristics of postsecondary students, postsecondary programs and courses of study, finance and resources, and 
postsecondary completions. 

Postsecondary education is characterized by diversity both in the types of institutions and in the characteristics of 
students. Postsecondary institutions vary by the types of degrees awarded, control (public or private), and whether they 
are operated on a nonprofit or for-profit basis. In addition, postsecondary institutions have distinctly different missions 
and provide students with a wide range of learning environments. 

This chapter’s indicators, as well as additional indicators on postsecondary education, are available at The Condition of 
Education website: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe . 


188 The Condition of Education 2015 



Chapter 4 

Postsecondary Education 


Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 

Indicator 31 . Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions 190 

Indicator 32. Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 194 

Programs and Courses 

Indicator 33. Undergraduate Degree Fields 200 

Indicator 34. Graduate Degree Fields 204 

Finance and Resources 

Indicator 35. Price of Attending on Undergraduate Institution 208 

Indicator 36. Grants and Loon Aid to Undergraduate Students 212 

Indicator 37. Postsecondary Revenues by Source 218 

Indicator 38. Expenses of Postsecondary Institutions 222 

Indicator 39. Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty 226 

Indicator 40. Student Loon Volume and Default Rotes 230 

Completions 

Indicator 41 . Institutional Retention and Graduation Rotes for Undergraduate Students ..234 
Indicator 42. Degrees Conferred by Public and Private Institutions 238 


Postsecondary Education 189 


Chapter: 4 /Postsecondary Education 

Section: Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 


Indicator 31 

Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary 
Institutions 

In 2013-14, some 29 percent of 4-year institutions had open admissions poiicies, 
26 percent accepted three-quarters or more of their applicants, 32 percent 
accepted from one-half to less than three-quarters of their applicants, and 
13 percent accepted less than one-haif of their appiicants. 


Figure 1. Number of degree-granting institutions with first-year undergraduates, by level and oontrol of institution: 
Academic years 2000-01 and 2013-14 


Number 



Total 4-year 2-year 


Level and control of Institution 

I 2000-01 Q 2013-14 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Titie iV federai financial aid programs. Exciudes institutions not 
enrolling any first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Nationai Center for Education Statistios, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (iPEDS), Fail 2000 and Fail 
2013, Institutional Characteristios component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 305.30. 


In 2013-14, there were 4,294 degree-granting institutions 
with first-year undergraduates, including 2,634 4-year 
institutions offering programs at the bachelor’s or higher 
degree level and 1,660 2-year institutions offering 
associate’s degrees. These institutions may be governed by 
publicly appointed or elected officials, with major support 
from public funds (public control), or by privately elected 
or appointed officials, with major support from private 
sources (private control). Private institutions may be 


operated on a nonprofit or for-profit basis. All institutions 
in this analysis enroll first-year undergraduates in degree- 
granting programs. The number of private nonprofit 
institutions in 2013-14 (1,365) was 1 percent lower than 
in 2000-01 (1,383), and the number of public institutions 
in 2013-14 (1,584) was 4 percent lower than in 2000-01 
(1,647). In contrast, the number of private for-profit 
institutions nearly doubled (from 687 to 1,345) between 
2000-01 and 2013-14. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


190 The Condition of Education 2015 



Chapter: 4 /Postsecondary Education 

Section: Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 


Figure 2. Percentage distribution ot 4-year degree-granting institutions with first-year undergraduates, by application 
acceptance rate and controi of institution: Academic year 2013-14 



Application acceptance rate 


I Total I Public Q Private nonprofit Q Private for-profit 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Excludes institutions not 
enrolling any first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 201 3, 
Institutional Characteristics component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074. table 305.40. 


In 2013-14, approximately 29 percent of 4-year 
institutions with first-year undergraduates had open 
admissions policies (accepted all applicants). A higher 
percentage of private for-profit 4-year institutions 
(65 percent) than private nonprofit (15 percent) and 
public (18 percent) 4-year institutions had open 


admissions policies in 2013—14. Among 4-year 
institutions, 26 percent accepted three-quarters or more 
of their applicants, 32 percent accepted from one-half to 
less than three-quarters of their applicants, and 13 percent 
accepted less than one-half of their applicants. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 191 


Chapter: 4 /Postsecondary Education 

Section: Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 


Figure 3. Percentage distribution of 2-yeor degree-granting institutions with first-year undergraduates, by application 
acceptance rate and control of institution: Academic year 2013-14 


Percent 



(no application criteria) accepted accepted accepted 

Application acceptance rate 

I Total I Public Q Private nonprofit Q Private for-profit 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Excludes institutions not 
enrolling any first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 201 3, 
Institutional Characteristics component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 305.40. 


In 2013-14, some 90 percent of 2-year institutions had 
open admissions. Almost all public 2-year institutions had 
open admissions (98 percent), while 84 percent of private 
for-profit 2-year and 54 percent of private nonprofit 
2-year institutions had open admissions. Among 2-year 


institutions, 6 percent accepted three-quarters or more of 
their applicants, 2 percent accepted from one-half to less 
than three-quarters of applicants, and 1 percent accepted 
less than one-half of their applicants. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


192 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4 /Postsecondary Education 

Section: Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 


Figure 4. Percentage of 4-year degree-granting institutions with first-year undergraduates, by admission requirements 
and controi of institution: Academic year 2013-14 

Percent 



program 


Admission requirements 

I Public Q Private nonprofit Q Private for-profit 

^ Test of English as a Foreign Language. 

2 Includes SAT, ACT, or other admission tests. 

^ Formal demonstration of competencies (e.g., portfolios, certificates of mastery, assessment instruments). 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Excludes institutions not 
enrolling any first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 201 3, 
Institutional Characteristics component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 305.30. 


In 2013-14, some 71 percent of 4-year and 9 percent 
of 2-year institutions had admission requirements for 
applicants. Admission requirements include the submission 
of information, such as secondary school administrative 
records. Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) 
scores, secondary school grades, admission test (such 
as the SAT or ACT) scores, recommendations, and 
college preparatory program information. Among 
4-year institutions, the percentages of public and private 
nonprofit institutions that required secondary school 
records for admission (78 and 77 percent, respectively) 
were more than twice the percentage of private for-profit 
institutions requiring them (32 percent). The percentages 


of 4-year public and private nonprofit institutions that 
required TOEFL scores (71 and 67 percent, respectively) 
were more than twice the percentage of 4-year private 
for-profit institutions requiring them (29 percent). Some 
69 percent of public 4-year institutions and 69 percent of 
private nonprofit 4-year institutions required secondary 
grades, more than 8 times the percentage of private 
for-profit 4-year institutions requiring them (8 percent). 
Among 4-year institutions, some 76 percent of public 
institutions required admission tests such as the SAT or 
ACT, compared with 61 percent of private nonprofit and 
1 percent of private for-profit institutions. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Degree-granting institutions, For-profit institution, 

305.30 and 305.40 Nonprofit institution 

Related indicators: Undergraduate Enrollment (indicator 14), 

Postbaccalaureate Enrollment (indicator 15), Postsecondary 
Revenues by Source (indicator 37), Expenses of Postsecondary 
Institutions (indicator 38), Characteristics of Postsecondary 
Faculty (indicator 39), Community Colleges [The Condition of 
Education 2008 Special Analysis 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 193 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 

Section: Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 


Indicator 32 

Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 

Some 10.5 million undergraduate students attended 4-year institutions in fall 
2013, while 7.0 million attended 2-year institutions. At 4-year institutions in fall 2013, 
some 77 peroent of undergraduate students attended full time, oompared with 
4 1 peroent at 2-year institutions. 


In fall 2013, there were 17.5 million undergraduate 
students and 2.9 million postbaccalaureate (graduate) 
students attending degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions in the United States. Undergraduate students 
can attend 4-year institutions that primarily award 
bachelor’s or higher degrees, or they can attend 2-year 
institutions that award associate’s degrees and certificates 
and offer courses that may be creditable toward a 
bachelor’s degree to be earned at a 4-year institution. 


Some 10.5 million undergraduate students (60 percent of 
the total) attended 4-year institutions, while 7.0 million 
(40 percent of the total) attended 2-year institutions. 

Of the undergraduate students at 4-year institutions, 

8.1 million, or 77 percent, attended full time. Of the 
undergraduate students at 2-year institutions, 2.8 million 
(41 percent) were full-time students and 4.1 million 
(59 percent) were part-time students. 


Figure 1. Percentage distribution of full-time undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 
by institutional level and control and student age: Fall 2013 


4-year 


Public 
Private nonprofit 
Private for-profit 

2-year 

Public 

Private nonprofit 
Private for-profit 



Percent of full-time undergraduates 

I Under 25 □ 25 to 34 □ 35 and older 


NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate s or higher degrees and partioipate in Title IV federal finaneial aid programs. Detail may not sum to totals 
because of rounding and the exclusion of "age unknown" studenfs. 

SOURCE: U.S. Deparfmenf of Educafion, National Center for Educafion Sfafistics, Infegrated Posfsecondary Educafion Dafa System (IPEDS), Spring 2014, 


Enrollment component. See Digest of Educafion Statistics 2014. table 303.50. 

In 2013, a higher percentage of full-time undergraduate 
students at public and private nonprofit 4-year institutions 
were young adults (i.e., under the age of 25) than at 
comparable 2-year institutions. At public and private 
nonprofit 4-year institutions, most of the full-time 


undergraduates (88 and 86 percent, respectively) were 
young adults. At private for-profit 4-year institutions, 
however, just 30 percent of full-time students were young 
adults (39 percent were ages 25-34, and 31 percent were 
age 35 and older). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


194 The Condition of Education 2015 








Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 

Section: Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 

Of full-time undergraduate students enrolled at 2-year 
institutions in 2013, young adults accounted for 
73 percent at public institutions, 61 percent at private 
nonprofit institutions, and 47 percent at private for-profit 
institutions. At public institutions, 16 percent of full-time 


students were ages 25-34, and 11 percent were age 35 and 
older; at private nonprofit institutions, 23 percent were 
ages 25-34, and 16 percent were age 35 and older; and at 
private for-profit institutions, 32 percent were ages 25-34, 
and 21 percent were age 35 and older. 


Figure 2. Percentage distribution ot part-time undergraduate enroilment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 
by institutional level and control and student age: Fall 2013 

4-year 

Public 

Private nonprofit 
Private for-profit 


Private nonprofit 
Private for-profit 



30 40 


100 


Percent of part-time undergraduates 

^ Under 25 □ 25 to 34 □ 35 and older 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Detail may not sum to totals 
because of rounding and the exclusion of "age unknown" students. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 201 4, 
Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 303.50. 


In contrast to the pattern among full-time students, a 
lower percentage of part-time undergraduates at public 
and private nonprofit 4-year institutions were young adults 
than at comparable 2-year institutions. Young adults made 
up 52 percent of part-time undergraduates at 4-year public 
institutions, 34 percent at private nonprofit institutions, 
and 22 percent at private for-profit institutions. Those 
ages 25-34 and those age 35 and older accounted for less 
than half of the part-time enrollment at public 4-year 
institutions (28 and 20 percent, respectively), nearly 
two-thirds of the part-time enrollment at private nonprofit 
4-year institutions (29 and 35 percent, respectively), and 


over three-quarters of the part-time enrollment at private 
for-profit 4-year institutions (39 percent each). 

Of part-time students enrolled at public 2-year institutions 
in 2013, some 55 percent were young adults, 24 percent 
were ages 25-34, and 21 percent were age 35 and older. 

At private nonprofit 2-year institutions, 42 percent of 
part-time students were young adults, 29 percent were age 
25-34, and 28 percent were age 35 and older. At private 
for-profit 2-year institutions, 35 percent of part-time 
students were young adults, 36 percent were ages 25-34, 
and 28 percent were age 35 and older. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 195 







Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 

Section: Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 


Figure 3. Percentage distribution of U.S. resident undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions, by institutional level and control and student roce/ethnicity: Foil 2013 


4-year 


Public 



Private nonprofit 


Private for-profit 


15 


I 


bl 

13 

10 

6 j 

□ 


t 


15 


54 

15 

22 


a 


Private nonprofit 


Private for-profit 


49 

28 

13 




30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Percent of U.S. resident undergraduates 

White □ Black □ Hispanic □ Asian IZI Pacific islander ^ American indian/Alaska Native □ Two or more races 


# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race categories exclude 
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because ot rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 201 4, 
Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 306.50. 


Attendance patterns for undergraduate students at both 
institutional levels differed by race/ethnicity. Sixty-seven 
percent of all undergraduate students (full-time and part- 
time) at private nonprofit 4-year institutions in 2013 were 
White, which was higher than the percentage of White 
students at either public 4-year institutions (62 percent) 
or private for-profit 4-year institutions (48 percent). A 
higher percentage of the students at private for-profit 
4-year institutions were Black (30 percent) than at public 
4-year institutions (12 percent) and private nonprofit 
4-year institutions (13 percent). A higher percentage of the 
students at public and private for-profit 4-year institutions 
were Hispanic (15 percent each) than at private nonprofit 
4-year institutions (10 percent). For Asian undergraduate 
students at 4-year institutions in 2013, the highest 
percentage attended public institutions (7 percent). 


The percentages of both White and Asian undergraduate 
students at public 2-year institutions (54 and 6 percent, 
respectively) were higher than the percentages at 
private nonprofit 2-year institutions (49 and 4 percent, 
respectively) and at private for-profit 2-year institutions 
(40 and 4 percent, respectively). In contrast, the 
percentages of students at private nonprofit and private 
for-profit 2-year institutions who were Black (28 percent 
each) were higher than the percentage at public 2-year 
institutions (15 percent). The percentage of students at 
private for-profit 2-year institutions who were Hispanic 
(24 percent) was higher than the percentages at public 
2-year institutions (22 percent) and at private nonprofit 
2-year institutions (13 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


196 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 

Section: Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 


Figure 4. Percentage distribution ot tuii-time and part-time postbaccalaureate enroilment in degree-granting 
postsecondary institutions, by institutional control and student age: Fall 2013 


Full-time 


Public 
Private nonprofit 
Private for-profit 

Part-time 

Public 

Private nonprofit 

Private for-profit 



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 


Percent of full- and parf-fime posfbaccalaureafe studenfs 

I Under 25 □ 25 to 29 □ 30 to 39 □ 40 and older 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Detail may not sum to totals 
because of rounding and the exclusion of "age unknown" students. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 201 4, 
Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 303.50. 


In 2013, some 48 percent of graduate students attended 
public institutions, 42 percent attended private nonprofit 
institutions, and 10 percent attended private for-profit 
institutions. In 2013, the majority of full-time graduate 
students at public institutions were young adults 
(37 percent) and adults age 25-29 (37 percent); the same 
was true at private nonprofit institutions (32 percent were 
young adults and 36 percent were adults age 25-29). 


In contrast, full-time students at private for-profit 
institutions were older: 34 percent were age 30-39 and 
40 percent were 40 and older. Among part-time graduate 
students, adults age 30 and older comprised 79 percent of 
the students at private for-profit institutions, 62 percent 
at private nonprofit institutions, and 60 percent at 
public institutions. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 197 







Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 

Section: Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 


Figure 5. Percentage distribution ot U.S. resident postbaccaiaureate enroiiment in degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions, by institutionoi controi and roce/ethnicity ot student: Foii 2013 



Percent of U.S. resident postbaccaiaureate students 

^ White □ Black □ Hispanic □ Asian IZI Pacific Islander ^ American Indian/Alaska Native □ Two or more races 
# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race categories exciude 
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because ot rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Nationai Center for Education Statistics, integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 201 4, 
Enroiiment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 306.50. 


Attendance patterns for graduate students also differed 
by race/ethnicity. At public institutions in 2013, some 
70 percent of graduate students were White, compared 
with 67 percent at private nonprofit institutions and 
47 percent at private for-profit institutions. Thirty- 
seven percent of graduate students at private for-profit 
institutions were Black, compared with 13 percent at 


private nonprofit institutions and 1 1 percent at public 
institutions. Hispanics accounted for 9 percent of 
graduate enrollment at both public and private for-profit 
institutions and 8 percent at private nonprofit institutions. 
Asians accounted for 9 percent of graduate enrollment 
at private nonprofit institutions, 7 percent at public 
institutions, and 4 percent at private for-profit institutions. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


198 The Condition of Education 2015 





Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 

Section: Characteristics of Postsecondary Students 


Figure 6. Percentage of 16- to 24-yeor-old college students who were employed, by attendance status and 
hours worked per week: October 2000 through October 2013 


Percent Full-time students 



Percent Part-time students 



Year Year 

NOTE: Students were classified as full time if they were taking at least 1 2 hours of undergraduate classes (or at least 9 hours of graduate classes) during an 
average school week and as part time if they were taking fewer hours. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS). Cctober 2000 through Cctober 2013. See Digest of Education 
Statistics 2074. table 503.20. 


Based on the Current Population Survey, about 40 percent 
of full-time college students 16 to 24 years old and 
76 percent of part-time college students 16 to 24 years 
old were employed in October 2013. The percentage of 
students who worked 35 or more hours per week declined 
from 9 percent in 2000 to 7 percent in 2013 for full-time 
students and from 47 to 35 percent for part-time students. 
The percentage of full-time students who worked 20 to 
34 hours per week declined from 22 percent in 2000 to 


19 percent in 2013, while the percentage of part-time 
students who worked 20 to 34 hours a week did not 
measurably change over the same time period. The 
percentage of full-time students who worked less than 

20 hours per week declined from 20 percent in 2000 to 
14 percent in 2013, while the percentage of part-time 
students who worked less than 20 hours a week did not 
change measurably between 2000 (9 percent) and 2013 
(11 percent). 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
303.50, 303.60, 306.50, and 503.20 

Related Indicators: Undergraduate Enrollment (indicator 14), 
Postbaccalaureate Enrollment (indicator 15), Community 
Colleges {The Condition of Education 2008 Special Analysis] 


Glossary: Degree-granting institutions. Full-time enrollment. 
Part-time enrollment, Postbaccalaureate enrollment, Private 
for-profit institution. Private nonprofit institution, Public school 
or institution. Undergraduate students 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 199 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Programs and Courses 


Indicator 33 

Undergraduate Degree Fields 

From 2002-03 to 2012-13, the number of assooiate's degrees awarded inoreased 
by 59 peroent, from 634,000 to over 1 million, and the number of baohelor's degrees 
awarded inoreased by 36 peroent, from 1.3 million to 1.8 million. 


In academic year 2012-13, over 1 million associate’s 
degrees were awarded by Title IV postsecondary 
institutions, a decrease of 1 percent from the previous 
year. Of the associate’s degrees awarded in 2012-13, 
about two-thirds (67 percent) were concentrated in three 
fields of study: liberal arts and sciences, general studies, 
and humanities (34 percent); health professions and 
related programs (21 percent); and business, management. 


marketing, and support services (1 1 percent). These three 
fields were the largest in 2002-03 and 2011-12 as well. 
The three fields awarding the next largest percentages of 
associate’s degrees in 2012-13 were homeland security, 
law enforcement, and firefighting (5 percent); computer 
and information sciences and support services (4 percent); 
and engineering technologies and engineering-related 
fields (3 percent). 


Figure 1. Number of associate's degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study: 
Academic years 2002-03 and 2012-13 


Field of study 


Total 

Liberal arts and sciences, 
general studies, and humanities 

Health protessions 
and related programs 

Business, management, 
marketing, and support services 

Psychology 

Physioal soiences 
and science technologies 

Social sciences and history 

Homeland security, law 
enforcement, and firefighting 

Public administration 
and social services 



Number of degrees 

NOTE: The first three fields of study shown were selected beoouse they were the fields in which fhe iorgesf number of associafe's degrees were awarded in 
201 2-1 3. The final five fields of sfudy were selecfed beoause fhey were fhe fields wifh fhe largesf increases in associafe's degrees awarded befween 2002-03 
and 2012-13. Dafa are for posfsecondary insfifufions parficipafing inTifle IV federal flnanoial aid programs. The new Classificafion of Insfruofional Programs 
was inifiafed in 2009-1 0.The esfimafes for 2002-03 have been reclassified when necessary fo make fhem conform to fhe new taxonomy. For associafe's 
degrees, ’business" includes fhe business, management marketing, and related support services field of study. Some data have been revised from previously 
published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Posfsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2003 and Fall 
2013, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 321 .10. 


Between 2002-03 and 2012-13, the number of 
associate’s degrees awarded increased by 373,000 degrees, 
or 59 percent. Over this time period, the number of 
associate’s degrees awarded in the three largest fields — 
liberal arts and sciences, general studies, and humanities; 
health professions and related programs; and business 
management, marketing, and support services — increased 
by 58 percent, 136 percent, and 28 percent, respectively. 
Of the 20 largest fields of study in which the most 
associate’s degrees were awarded in 2012-13, the field 
of psychology had the largest percentage increase 
over the previous decade (243 percent, from 1,800 to 


6,100 degrees). Additionally, the number of associate’s 
degrees awarded more than doubled in the following 
fields: physical sciences and science technologies increased 
from 2,200 to 6,400 degrees (190 percent); social sciences 
and history increased from 5,700 to 15,700 degrees 
(174 percent); homeland security, law enforcement, and 
firefighting increased from 18,600 to 48,400 degrees 
(160 percent); public administration and social services 
increased from 3,500 to 8,800 degrees (148 percent); and 
health professions and related programs, mentioned above, 
increased from 90,700 to 214,000 degrees (136 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


200 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Programs and Courses 


Figure 2. Number of bachelor's degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study: 
Academic years 2002-03 and 2012-13 


Field of study 



Number of degrees 

NOTE: The first three fields of study shown were selected because they were the fields in which the largest number of bachelor's degrees were awarded in 
201 2-1 3. The final two fields of study were selected because they were the fields with the largest increases in bachelor's degrees awarded between 2002-03 
and 2012-13. Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. The new Classification of Instructional Programs 
was initiated in 2009-1 0.The estimates for 2002-03 have been reclassified when necessary to make them conform to the new taxonomy. For bachelor's 
degrees, "business" includes the business, management, marketing, and related support services field of study and the personal and culinary services field of 
study. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2003 and Fall 
201 3, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 322.10. 


In 2012—13, some 1.8 million bachelors degrees were 
awarded by Title IV postsecondary institutions, an 
increase of 3 percent from 2011—12. The three fields 
awarding the largest percentages of bachelor’s degrees in 
2012-13 were: business* (20 percent), health professions 
and related programs (10 percent), and social sciences 
and history (10 percent). The three fields awarding the 
next largest percentages of bachelor’s degrees in 2012-13 


were psychology (6 percent), education (6 percent), and 
biological and biomedical sciences (5 percent). These six 
fields awarded the largest percentages of bachelor’s degrees 
in 2011—12 as well. They were also six of the nine fields 
that awarded the largest percentages of bachelor’s degrees 
in 2002-03 (the other three were visual and performing 
arts; communication, journalism, and related programs; 
and engineering). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 201 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Programs and Courses 


Overall, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded 
increased by 491,000 degrees from 2002-03 to 2012-13, 
reflecting an increase of 36 percent. The three largest 
flelds of study — business, health professions and related 
programs, and social sciences and history — had increases 
during this period of 23 percent, 154 percent, and 
24 percent, respectively. Of the 20 largest flelds of study 
in 2012-13, the largest percentage increases over the 


previous decade occurred in the following fields: health 
professions and related programs increased from 71,300 to 
181,100 degrees (154 percent); homeland security, law 
enforcement, and firefighting increased from 26,200 to 
60,300 degrees (130 percent); and parks, recreation, 
leisure, and fitness studies increased from 21,400 to 
42,700 degrees (99 percent). 


Figure 3. Number of bachelor's degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study, by sex: 
Academic year 2012-13 


Field of study 



NOTEiThe six fields of study shown were selected because they were the fields in which the icrgest number of bacheior's degrees were awarded in 201 2-1 3. 
Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Titie iV federai financial aid programs. For bachelor's degrees, "business" inciudes the business, 
management, marketing, and reiated support services field of study and the personal and culinary services field of study. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (iPEDS), Fali 201 3, 
Compietions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tabies 322.40 and 322.50. 


In 2012-13, about 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees, some 
1.1 million degrees, were awarded to females. The same 
percentage of bachelor’s degrees was awarded to females 
in 2011-12 as well. Of the six fields awarding the largest 
percentages of bachelor’s degrees in 2012-13, females 
were awarded the majority of degrees in the following 
four fields: health professions and related programs 
(84 percent of degrees awarded to females), education 


(79 percent of degrees awarded to females), psychology 
(77 percent of degrees awarded to females), and biological 
and biomedical sciences (59 percent of degrees awarded 
to females). Males were awarded the majority of degrees 
in business (52 percent of degrees awarded to males) and 
social sciences and history (51 percent of degrees awarded 
to males). 


Endnotes: 

' For bachelor’s degrees, “business” includes the business, 
management, marketing, and related support services field 
of study, as well as the personal and culinary services field 


of study. This differs from associate’s degrees, for which 
“business” does not include the personal and culinary 
services field of study. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree. Classification of 

321.10, 322.10, 322.40, and 322.50 Instructional Programs (CIP) 

Related indicators: Annual Earnings of Young Adults 
(indicator 3), Employment Rates and Unemployment Rates 
by Educational Attainment (indicator 4), Graduate Degree 
Fields (indicator 34), Degrees Conferred by Public and Private 
Institutions (indicator 42) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


202 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Programs and Courses 


Indicator 34 

Graduate Degree Fields 

Between academic years 2002-03 and 2012-13, the number of master's degrees 
awarded increased by 45 percent, from 519,000 to 752,000, and the number of 
doctor's degrees awarded increased by 44 percent, from 122,000 to 175,000. 


The number of master’s degrees awarded by postsecondary 
institutions decreased by 1 percent between academic years 
2011-12 and 2012-13 (from 756,000 to 752,000 degrees). 
Of the 752,000 master’s degrees awarded in 2012-13, 
nearly half were concentrated in two fields: business 
(25 percent) and education (22 percent). The three fields 
awarding the next largest percentages of master’s degrees 


were health professions and related programs (12 percent), 
public administration and social services (6 percent), 
and engineering (5 percent). In addition to being the five 
largest fields in 2012-13, these same fields awarded the 
largest percentages of master’s degrees in 2002-03 and 
2011-12. 


Figure 1. Number of master's degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fields of study: 
Academic years 2002-03, 2007-08, 2011-12, and 2012-13 


Field of study 



Number of degrees 

NOTE: These five fields were selected because they were the fields in which the largest percentage of master's degrees were awarded in 201 2-13. Includes 
only institutions that participated in Title IV federal financial aid programs. An updated version of the Classification of Instructional Programs was initiated in 
2009-1 0.The estimates for 2002-03 and 2007-08 have been reclassified when necessary to make them conform to the new taxonomy. "Business" includes 
business, management, marketing, and related support services and personal and culinary services. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2003, Fall 2008, 
Fall 201 2, and Fall 2013, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 323.10. 


Between 2002-03 and 2012-13, the number of master’s 
degrees awarded increased by 233,000, reflecting an 
increase of 45 percent. During this period, the two fields 
of study awarding the largest percentages of master’s 
degrees in 2012-13, business and education, had increases 
in degrees awarded of 48 percent and 11 percent, 
respectively. Between 2011-12 and 2012-13, however, 
business and education degrees awarded decreased by 
2 and 8 percent, respectively. The number of degrees 
awarded in 2012-13 was higher in each of the 20 largest 
fields of study than it was a decade earlier. The field of 


homeland security, law enforcement, and firefighting 
exhibited the largest percentage increase in the number 
of master’s degrees awarded between 2002-03 and 
2012-13 (from 3,000 to 8,900 degrees, a 200 percent 
increase). The next largest percentage increase was in 
the field of parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies 
(from 3,000 to 7,100 degrees, a 140 percent increase). 
Among these 20 fields, the field of education had the 
smallest percentage increase in the number of master’s 
degrees between 2002-03 and 2012-13 (from 148,000 to 
165,000 degrees, an 11 percent increase). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


204 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Programs and Courses 


The number of doctor’s degrees awarded by postsecondary 
institutions increased by 3 percent between 2011-12 
and 2012-13 (from 170,000 to 175,000 degrees). The 
percentages of doctor’s degrees awarded in health 
professions and related programs (37 percent) and legal 
professions and studies (27 percent) made up almost 
two-thirds of the 175,000 doctor’s degrees awarded 


in 2012-13. The three fields awarding the next largest 
percentages of doctor’s degrees in 2012-13 were education 
(6 percent), engineering (5 percent), and biological and 
biomedical sciences (5 percent). These were the same five 
fields in which the largest percentages of doctor’s degrees 
were awarded in 2002-03 and 2011-12. 


Figure 2. Number of doctor's degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions in selected fieids of study: 
Academic years 2002-03, 2007-08, 2011-12, and 2012-13 


Field of study 


Total 


Health professions and 
related programs 


Legal professions 
and studies 


Eduoation 


Engineering 


Biologioal and 
biomedical sciences 



121,600 



51,700 


162,100 

^64,200 


5 


6,800 

8,500 

10,100 I 


10,600 


15,200 

“27,900 

“18,700 

“19,400 


39,200 I 
1 43,900 i 
46,800 
47,20b 



I 


1170,200 
n 175,000 

I 


I 

i 


I 2002-03 

□ 2007-08 

□ 2011-12 
□ 2012-13 


0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 180,000 210,000 


Number of degrees 


NOTE: These five fields were selected because they were the fields in which the largest percentages of doctor's degrees were awarded in 201 2-13. Includes 
only institutions that participated in Title IV federal financial aid programs. An updated version of the Classification of Instructional Programs was initiated in 
2009-1 0.The estimates for 2002-03 and 2007-08 have been reclassified when necessary to make them oonform to the new taxonomy. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2003, Fall 2008, 
Fall 201 2, and Fall 201 3, Completions component. See Digest of Educotion Statistics 2014, table 324.1 0. 


Between 2002-03 and 2012-13, the number of doctor’s 
degrees awarded increased from 121,600 to 175,000, 
reflecting an increase of 44 percent. During this period, 
the two largest fields of study, health professions and 
related programs and legal professions and studies, had 
increases in degrees awarded of 61 percent and 21 percent, 
respectively. Also, doctor’s degree awards were higher in 
each of the 20 largest fields in 2012-13 than in 2002-03. 
The field of business had the largest percentage increase in 
the number of doctor’s degrees awarded between 2002-03 


and 2012-13 (from 1,300 to 2,800 degrees, a 127 percent 
increase). The next largest percentage increase was in the 
field of computer and information sciences (from 800 to 
1,800 degrees awarded, a 124 percent increase). Among 
the largest 20 fields of study, the field of English language 
and literature/letters had the smallest percentage increase 
in the number of doctor’s degrees awarded between 
2002-03 and 2012-13 (from 1,200 to 1,400 degrees, a 
10 percent increase). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 205 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Programs and Courses 


Figure 3. Number of master's and doctor's degrees awarded by postsecondary institutions, by ievei of degree and sex: 
Academic years 2002-03, 2007-08, 2011-12, and 2012-13 


Master's 

degree 


Doctor's 

degree 


Female 


Male 


Female 


Male 



800 I 

75.900 

^87,500 

8'9,900 



82,700 

85,100 



I 2002-03 

□ 2007-08 

□ 2011-12 
□ 2012-13 


0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 


Number of degrees 

NOTE: Includes only institutions that participated in Title IV federal financial aid programs. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2003, Fall 2008, 
Fall 201 2, and Fall 201 3, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 323.20 and 324.20. 


Females were awarded more master’s degrees than males 
in 2012-13 (450,000 vs. 302,000 degrees), as well as in 
2011-12 and 2002-03. The number of master’s degrees 
awarded to females decreased by 1 percent between 
academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 (from 453,000 to 
450,000 degrees). The number of master’s degrees awarded 
to males decreased less than one-half of 1 percent between 
2011-12 and 2012-13 (from 302,500 to 301,600 degrees). 
Between 2002-03 and 2012-13, the number of master’s 
degrees awarded to females increased by 147,000, 
reflecting an increase of 48 percent. Over the same 
period, the number of master’s degrees awarded to males 
increased by 86,400, reflecting an increase of 40 percent. 


Females were awarded more doctor’s degrees than males 
in 2012-13 (89,900 vs. 85,100 degrees), as well as in 
2011-12. In contrast, males earned more doctor’s degrees 
than females in 2002-03 (62,700 vs. 58,800 degrees). The 
numbers of doctor’s degrees awarded by postsecondary 
institutions to females and males both increased by 
3 percent between academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13 
(from 87,500 to 89,900 degrees for females and from 
82,700 to 85,100 degrees for males). Between 2002-03 
and 2012-13, the number of doctor’s degrees awarded 
to females increased by 31,100, reflecting an increase of 
53 percent. The number of doctor’s degrees awarded to 
males increased by 22,400 over the decade, reflecting an 
increase of 36 percent. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), 

323.10, 323.20, 324.10, and 324.20 Doctor’s degree. Master’s degree 

Related indicators: Annual Earnings of Young Adults 

(indicator 3), Employment Rates and Unemployment Rates by 

Educational Attainment (indicator 4), Undergraduate Degree 

Fields (indicator 33), Degrees Conferred by Public and Private 

Institutions (indicator 42) 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


206 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Indicator 35 

Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution 

The average net price of attendance (total cost minus grant and scholarship aid) 
in 2012-13 (in constant 2013-14 dollars) for first-time, full-time students was h 2,890 
at public, instate 4-year institutions, $24,430 at private nonprofit 4-year institutions, 
and $21,740 at private for-profit 4-year institutions. 


Figure 1 . Average total cost of attending degree-granting institutions for first-time, full-time students, by level and 
control of institution and student living arrangement: Academic year 2013-14 


Amount [In constant 2013-14 dollars] 



4-year institutions 2-year institutions 

Level and control of Institution 

I On campus Q Off campus, living with family Q Off campus, not living with family 

NOTE: The total cost of attending a postsecondary institution is the sum of published tuition and required fees, books and supplies, and the weighted average 
cost for room, board, and other expenses. Tuition and fees at public institutions are the lower of either in-district or in-state tuition and fees. Excludes students 
who have already attended another postsecondary institution or who began their studies on a part-time basis. Data illustrating the average total cost of 
attendance for all students are weighted by the number of students at the institution receiving Title IV aid. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 201 3-1 4, 
Student Financial Aid component; and Fall 201 3, Institutional Characteristics component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 330.40. 


The total cost of attending a postsecondary institution 
is the sum of published tuition and required fees, books 
and supplies, and the weighted average cost for room, 
board, and other expenses. In academic year 2013-14, 
the total cost of attendance differed by institution level 
and control, and by student living arrangements. At 
4-year institutions, the average total cost of attendance 
for first-time, full-time students living on campus and 
paying in-state tuition was $22,190 at public institutions, 
$44,370 at private nonprofit institutions, and $29,950 at 
private for-profit institutions. At 2-year institutions, the 
average total cost of attendance for first-time, full-time 


students at public institutions living on campus and 
paying in-state tuition was $13,580, and it was $28,290 
at private nonprofit institutions, and $28,060 at private 
for-profit institutions. At each institution level and 
control, the average total cost of attendance was lowest 
for students living with family. For example, for students 
paying in-state tuition at public 2-year institutions and 
living with family, the average total cost of attendance 
was $8,530, compared with $13,580 for students living on 
campus and $16,090 for students living off campus but 
not with family. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


208 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Many students and their families pay less than the full 
price of attendance because they receive financial aid to 
help cover their expenses. The primary types of financial 
aid are grant and scholarship aid, which do not have to 
be repaid, and loans, which must be repaid. Grant and 
scholarship aid may be awarded on the basis of financial 
need, merit, or both and may include tuition aid from 
employers. In 2012-13, the average amount of grant 
and scholarship aid for first-time, full-time students who 
received Title IV aid was higher for students at private 
nonprofit institutions than for those at public and private 
for-profit institutions.' For example, students at 4-year 
private nonprofit institutions received an average of 
$18,180, compared with $6,660 at public institutions 
and $5,170 at private for-profit institutions. The 2012-13 
average net cost ranged from a low of $8,510 for students 
living off campus with their families at public 2-year 
institutions to a high of $43,550 for students living on 
campus at private nonprofit 4-year institutions. 


The net price is the estimate of the actual amount of 
money that students and their families need to pay in 
a given year to cover educational expenses. Net price is 
calculated here as the total cost of attendance minus grant 
and scholarship aid. Net price provides an indication 
of what the actual financial burden is upon students 
and their families. In 2012-13, the average net price for 
first-time, full-time students who received Title IV aid was 
lower for students at public institutions than for those at 
private nonprofit and private for-profit institutions. For 
example, the average net price of attendance in 2012-13 
for first-time, full-time students was $12,890 at public, 
in-state 4-year institutions, $24,430 at private nonprofit 
4-year institutions, and $21,740 at private for-profit 
4-year institutions. 


Figure 2. Average total price, net price, and grant and scholarship aid for first-time, full-time students paying in-state 
tuition and receiving aid at pubiic 4-year institutions, by family income level: Academic year 2012-13 


Amount 

$50,000 

45.000 

40.000 

35.000 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

1 0.000 

5,000 

0 


[In constant 2013-14 dollars] 


$19,550 


$19,330 


$20,230 


$20,790 


$ 21,210 


$ 22,120 



Total 


$0-30,000 $30,001-48,000 $48,001-75,000 $75,001-110,000 $1 10,001 or more 


Income level 

I Average net price Q Average amount of grant and scholarship aid from all sources 

NOTE: Excludes students who previously attended another postsecondary institution or who began their studies on a part-time basis. Includes only first-time, 
full-time students who paid the in-state or in-district tuition rate and who reoeived Title IV aid. Excludes students who did not reoeive any Title IV aid. Title IV aid 
includes grant aid, work-study aid, and loan aid: however, the calculation of net price does not take into account student loan aid. Data are weighted by the 
number of students at the institution receiving Title IV aid. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistios, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 201 3-1 4, 
Student Einancial Aid component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 331 .30. 


The average amount of grant and scholarship aid 
received and net price paid differed by family income 
level. In general, the lower the income, the greater the 
total amount of grant and scholarship aid received. 
For example, at public 4-year institutions, the average 
amount of grant and scholarship aid received by first- 
time, full-time students paying in-state tuition in 


2012-13 was highest for those with incomes of $30,000 
or less ($9,800 in aid) and lowest for those with incomes 
of $110,001 or more ($1,790 in aid). Accordingly, the 
lowest average net price ($9,530) was for those with 
incomes of $30,000 or less, and the highest average net 
price ($20,330) was for those with incomes of $110,001 
or more. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 209 







Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 3. Average total price, net price, and grant and scholarship aid for first-time, full-time students receiving aid at 
private nonprofit 4-year institutions, by famiiy income level: Academic year 2012-13 


Amount [In constant 2013-14 dollars] 

$50,000 

45.000 

40.000 

35.000 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

1 0.000 

5,000 

0 

Total $0-30,000 $30,001-48,000 $48,001-75,000 $75,001-110,000 $1 1 0,001 or more 

Income level 

I Average net prioe Q Average amount of grant and scholarship aid from all sources 

NOTE: Excludes students who previously attended another postsecondary institution or who began their studies on a part-time basis. Includes only first-time, 
full-time students who received Title IV aid. Excludes students who did not receive any Title IV aid. Title IV aid includes grant aid, work-study aid, and loan aid: 
however, the ealculation of net prioe does not take into account student loan aid. Data are weighted by the number of students at the institution receiving 
Title IV aid. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 201 3-14, 
Student Einaneial Aid component. See Digest of Education Statistics 201 4, table 331 .30. 


$47,110 



As with public 4-year institutions, the pattern of average 
net price increasing with family income was also observed 
for private nonprofit 4-year institutions. However, in 
2012-13 the average amount of grant and scholarship 
aid received followed a different pattern. It was highest 
for those with incomes between $30,001 and $48,000 


($21,510), followed by those with incomes between 
$48,001 and $75,000 ($19,980), those with incomes of 
$30,000 or less ($19,490), those with incomes between 
$75,001 and $110,000 ($17,720), and those with incomes 
of $110,001 or more ($14,250). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


210 The Condition of Education 2015 







Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 4. Average total price, net price, and grant and scholarship aid for first-time, full-time students receiving aid at 
private for-profit 4-year institutions, by family income levei: Academic year 2012-13 


Amount [In constant 2013-14 dollars] 

$50,000 p 

45.000 

40.000 

35.000 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

1 0.000 

5,000 

0 

Total $0-30,000 $30,001-48,000 $48,001-75,000 $75,001-110,000 $1 1 0,001 or more 


$32,650 



Income level 

I Average net price Q Average amount of grant and scholarship aid from all sources 

NOTE: Excludes students who previously attended another postsecondary institution or who began their studies on a part-time basis. Includes only first-time, 
full-time students who received Title IV aid. Excludes students who did not receive any Title IV aid. Title IV aid includes grant aid, wcrk-study aid, and loan aid: 
however, the ealculation of net prioe does not take into account student loan aid. Data are weighted by the number of students at the institution receiving 
Title IV aid. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 201 3-14, 
Student Einaneial Aid component. See Digest of Education Statistics 201 4, table 331 .30. 


At private for-profit 4-year institutions, family income 
level was also associated with the amount of grant and 
scholarship aid and with net price. The average amount of 
grant and scholarship aid received by first-time, full-time 
students in 2012-13 was highest for those with family 
incomes of $30,000 or less ($5,580), while it was lowest 
among families with incomes between $75,001 and 
$110,000 ($2,160) and families with incomes of $110,001 
or more ($2,230). The lowest average net price was for 
those with incomes of $30,000 or less ($21,380), and the 
highest average net price was for those with incomes of 
$110,001 or more ($30,420). 

In addition to the differences observed for each institution 
type by family income level, the average amount of 
grant and scholarship aid received and the average net 
price of attendance also varied by institution control. 


At each family income level, the average amount of grant 
and scholarship aid was highest for students at private 
nonprofit institutions and generally lowest for students 
at private for-profit institutions; the average net price 
was generally highest for students at private for-profit 
institutions and lowest for students paying in-state tuition 
at public institutions. For example, the average amount of 
grant and scholarship aid received by students attending 
4-year institutions with family incomes between $30,001 
and $48,000 was highest at private nonprofit institutions 
($21,510), followed by public, in-state institutions 
($9,050), and private for-profit institutions ($5,510). The 
average net price of attending a 4-year private for-profit 
institution ($22,280) at this income level was higher than 
the price of attending a private nonprofit ($19,340) or a 
public institution ($11,180). 


Endnotes: 

' Average net cost, grant and scholarship aid, and net price 
amounts are calculated in constant 2013-14 dollars. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Financial aid. Private institution. Public school or 

330.40 and 331.30 institution. Tuition and fees 

Related indicators: Grants and Loan Aid to Undergraduate 

Students (indicator 36), Student Loan Volume and Default 

Rates (indicator 40), Financing Postsecondary Education in the 

United States [The Condition of Education 2013 Spotlight\ 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 211 








Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Indicator 36 

Grants and Loan Aid to Undergraduate Students 

The percentage of first-time, full-time undergraduate students at 4-year degree- 
granting institutions receiving financial aid increased from 80 percent in 2007-08 to 
85 percent in 2012-13. 


Grants and loans are the major forms of federal financial 
aid for degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate 
students. The largest federal grant program available to 
undergraduate students is the Pell Grant program. In order 
to qualify for a Pell Grant, a student must demonstrate 
financial need. Federal loans, on the other hand, are 
available to all students. In addition to federal financial 


aid, there are also grants from state and local governments, 
institutions, and private sources, as well as private loans. 

In this indicator, student loans include only loans made 
directly to students; they do not include Parent Loans for 
Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and other loans made 
directly to parents. 


Figure 1. Percentage of first-time, full-time undergraduate students in degree-granting postsecondary institutions 
receiving any financial aid, by level and control of institution: Academic years 2007-08 through 2012-13 



Academic year 

M — Total — • — Public — A- — Private nonprofit ♦ Private for-profit 


NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participdte in Title IV tederal financial aid programs. Some data have been 
revised from previously published figures. Student financial aid includes any Federal Work-Study, loans to students, or grant or scholarship aid from the federal 
government, state/local government, the institution, or other sources known to the institution. Student loans include only loans made directly to students: they 
do not include Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and other loans made directly to parents. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2009 
through Spring 201 1 and Winter 201 1 -12 through Winter 201 3-14, Student Financial Aid component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 331 .20. 


From academic years 2007-08 to 2012-13, the 
percentage of first-time, full-time degree/certificate- 
seeking undergraduate students at 4-year degree-granting 
institutions receiving any financial aid increased from 
80 to 85 percent. During this time, the percentage 
of students receiving aid at 4-year private nonprofit 


institutions increased from 86 to 89 percent, and the 
percentage of students at 4-year public institutions 
increased from 77 to 83 percent. The percentage 
of students receiving aid at 4-year private for-profit 
institutions was 76 percent in 2007-08 and 89 percent 
in 2012-13, a difference of 13 percentage points. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


212 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


For 2-year institutions, the percentage of first-time, full- 
time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students 
receiving any financial aid increased from 68 percent 
in 2007-08 to 78 percent in 2012-13. Showing no 
significant change, the percentage of students receiving 
aid at 2-year private for-profit institutions was 87 percent 


in both 2007-08 and 2012-13. The percentage of 
students receiving aid at 2-year private nonprofit 
institutions increased from 85 to 90 percent and the 
percentage of students receiving aid at 2-year public 
institutions increased from 62 to 76 percent. 


Figure 2. Percentage of first-time, fuli-time undergraduate students receiving financial aid at 4-year degree-granting 
postsecondary institutions, by type of aid and controi of institution: Academic year 2012-13 


Percent receiving aid 



Type of aid 

I Public Q Private nonprofit Q Private for-profit 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Titie iV federai financiai aid programs. Student financiai aid includes 
any Federal Work-Study, loans to students, or grant or scholarship aid from the federal government, state/local government, the institution, or other sources 
known to the institution. Student ioans include only loans made directly to students: they do not include Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and 
other loans made directly to parents. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Educafion, Nafional Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postseconddry Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 201 3-1 4, 
Student Financial Aid component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 331 .20. 


In 2012-13, the percentage of first-time, full-time degree/ 
certificate-seeking undergraduate students receiving 
federal grants at 4-year institutions was highest at private 
for-profit institutions (74 percent), compared with lower 
percentages at public (38 percent) and private nonprofit 
institutions (33 percent). The percentage of students at 
4-year institutions receiving state or local grants was 
highest at public institutions (37 percent), followed 
by the percentage at private nonprofit institutions 
(26 percent) and the percentage at private for-profit 


institutions (10 percent). The percentage of students 
receiving institutional grants was highest at 4-year private 
nonprofit institutions (81 percent), followed by public 
institutions (44 percent) and private for-profit institutions 
(27 percent). The percentage of students at 4-year 
institutions receiving student loan aid was highest at 
private for-profit institutions (79 percent). In comparison, 
62 percent of students at private nonprofit institutions 
and 51 percent of students at public institutions received 
student loan aid. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 213 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 3. Percentage of first-time, fuli-time undergraduate students receiving financial aid at 2-year degree-granting 
postsecondary institutions, by type of aid and controi of institution: Academic year 2012-13 


Percent receiving aid 



Type of aid 

I Public Q Private nonprofit Q Private for-profit 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Student financial aid includes 
any Federal Work-Study, loans to students, or grant or scholarship aid from the federal government, state/looal government, the institution, or other sources 
known to the institution. Student loans include only loans made directly to students; they do not include Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and 
other loans made directly to parents. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 2013-14, 
Student Financial Aid component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 331 .20. 


For first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeking 
undergraduate students at 2-year institutions in 2012-13, 
the percentage of students receiving federal grants was 
highest at private for-profit institutions (71 percent), 
compared with the percentage at private nonprofit 
institutions (67 percent) and at public institutions 
(56 percent). A higher percentage of students at 2-year 
public institutions (34 percent) received state or 
local grants than students at 2-year private nonprofit 
institutions (30 percent) or 2-year private for-profit 


institutions (7 percent). About 38 percent of students at 
2-year private nonprofit institutions received institutional 
grants, compared with 13 percent of students at private 
for-profit institutions and 1 1 percent of students at 
public institutions. The percentage of students at 2-year 
institutions receiving student loan aid was highest at 
private for-profit institutions (76 percent), compared with 
private nonprofit institutions (61 percent) and public 
institutions (27 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


214 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 4. Average amount of student financial aid awarded to first-time, full-time undergraduate students receiving 
aid at 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of financiai aid and controi of institution: 
Academic year 2012-13 


Average amount of student aid [In constant 201 3-1 4 dollars] 



Type of aid 

I Public Q Private nonprofit Q Private for-profit 


NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Grant award amounts are in 
constant 201 3-14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Student loans include only loans made directly to students; they do not include Parent 
Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and other loans made directly to parents. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 201 3-1 4, 
Student Financial Aid component. See Digest of Education Statistics 20 M, table 331 .20. 


There were substantial variations in the average amounts 
of federal, state/local, and institutional grant aid that 
students received at different types of 4-year institutions 
in 2012-13 reported in constant 2013-14 dollars. The 
average federal grant was $4,771 for first-time, full-time 
students at private nonprofit institutions, $4,737 at private 
for-profit institutions, and $4,579 at public institutions. 
The average state or local grant was $3,736 at private 
nonprofit institutions, $3,727 at public institutions. 


and $2,987 at private for-profit institutions. There were 
larger differences in the average institutional grant 
awards by institution type. The average institutional 
grant award was higher at private nonprofit institutions 
($16,309) than at public institutions ($5,245) or private 
for-profit institutions ($3,087). The average student loan 
amount was higher at private for-profit ($8,430) and 
private nonprofit ($8,028) institutions than at public 
institutions ($6,682). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 215 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 5. Average amount of student financial aid awarded to first-time, full-time undergraduate students receiving 
aid at 2-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by type of financiai aid and control of institution: 
Academic year 2012-13 



Federal grants State/local grants Institutional grants Student loans 


Type of aid 

I Public Q Private nonprofit Q Private for-profit 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Grant award amounts are in 
constant 201 3-14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Student loans include only loans made directly to students; they do not include Parent 
Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and other loans made directly to parents. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Winter 201 3-1 4, 
Student Financial Aid component. See Digest of Education Statistics 20 M, table 331 .20. 


There were also notable variations in the average amounts 
of grant aid received by students at different types of 
2-year institutions in 2012-13 reported in constant 
2013-14 dollars. The average federal grant was $4,410 
for first-time, full-time students at public institutions, 
$4,220 for those at private for-profit institutions, and 
$4,001 for those at private nonprofit institutions. The 
average state or local grant award was $3,427 at 2-year 
private nonprofit institutions, $3,412 at private for-profit 


institutions, and $1,674 at public institutions. The average 
institutional grant award was higher at private nonprofit 
institutions ($4,415) than at public institutions ($1,921) or 
at private for-profit institutions ($1,443). Similar to 4-year 
institutions, the average student loan amount at 2-year 
institutions in 2012-13 was higher at private for-profit 
($8,088) and nonprofit ($7,080) institutions than at public 
institutions ($4,872). 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, Glossary: Financial aid. Higher education institutions. Private 

table 331.20 institution, Public school or institution, Undergraduate students 

Related indicators: Price of Attending an Undergraduate 

Institution (indicator 35), Student Loan Volume and Default 

Rates (indicator 40), Financing Postsecondary Education in the 

United States [The Condition of Education 2013 Spotlight\ 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


216 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Indicator 37 

Postsecondary Revenues by Source 

Between 2007-08 and 2012-13, revenues from tuition and fees per fuii- 
time-equivaient (FTE) student increased by 1 7 percent at pubiic institutions 
(from $5,478 to $6,415, in constant 2013-14 dollars) and by 7 percent at private 
nonprofit institutions (from $18,550 to $19,866). At private for-profit institutions, 
revenues from tuition and fees were 7 percent higher in 2012-13 than in 2007-08 
($16,135 vs. $15,110). 


In academic year 2012-13, total revenues at degree- 
granting postsecondary institutions, in current dollars, 
were $328 billion at public institutions, $202 billion at 
private nonprofit institutions, and $25 billion at private 
for-profit institutions. At public institutions, the largest 
percentage of total revenues, some 44 percent, came from 
government sources (which include federal, state, and 
local government grants, contracts, and appropriations). 
At private nonprofit institutions and private for-profit 


institutions, student tuition and fees constituted the 
largest percentage of total revenues (32 and 91 percent, 
respectively). It is important to note that Pell grants 
are included in the federal grant revenues at public 
institutions but tend to be included in tuition and fees 
and auxiliary enterprise revenues at private nonprofit and 
private for-profit institutions. Thus, revenue data are not 
comparable across these categories. 


Figure 1. Percentage distribution of total revenues at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by institutional 
control, level, and source of funds: 2012-13 


Institutional 
control and level 

Public 

4-year 


2-year 

Private nonprofit 

4-year 


2-year 

Private for-profit 

4-year 


2-year 



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 


Percent 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Percentages are based on current 2013-14 dollars. Government grants, contracts, and appropriations include revenues from federal, state, and 
local governments. All other revenue includes gifts, capital or private grants and contracts, auxiliary enterprises, and other revenue. Revenue data are not 
comparable across institutional control categories because Pell grants are included in the federal grant revenues at public institutions but tend to be 
included in tuition and auxiliary enterprise revenues at private nonprofit and private for-profit institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or 
higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2014, 
Finance component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 333.10, 333.40, and 333.55. 


There were general patterns in the primary sources 
of revenues across institutional levels (i.e., between 
2-year and 4-year institutions), but there were notable 
differences in the percentages from these revenue sources. 


For example, revenues from government sources were 
the largest source of revenue at both 4-year and 2-year 
public institutions (38 and 71 percent, respectively). 
Revenues from tuition and fees were the largest source 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


218 The Condition of Education 2015 









Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


of revenue for both 4-year and 2-year private nonprofit 
institutions (32 and 68 percent, respectively) and 
both 4-year and 2-year private for-profit institutions 
(91 and 90 percent, respectively). Investment returns or 
investment income varied by institutional control and 
level. Revenues from these investments accounted for 
19 percent of total revenues at 4-year private nonprofit 


institutions in 2012-13, compared with 4 percent of total 
revenues at 4-year public institutions, and 3 percent at 
2-year private nonprofit institutions. Investment income 
accounted for less than half of 1 percent of total revenues 
for other types of 4-year and 2-year degree-granting 
postsecondary institutions. 


Figure 2. Revenues from tuition and fees per fuii-time-equivalent (FTE) student for degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions, by institutionai controi and level: 2007-08 and 2012-13 


Institutional control and level [In constant 2013-14 dollars] 



Revenues per FTE student 

NOTE: Full-time-equivalent (FTE) student includes full-time students plus the full-time equivalent of part-time students. Revenues per FTE student are reported 
in constant 201 3-14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted to a school-year basis. Revenue data are not comparable aeross institutional 
control oategories beoause Pell grants are included in the federal grant revenues at public institutions but tend to be included in tuition and auxiliary 
enterprise revenues at private nonprofit and private for-profit institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and partioipate in 
Title IV federal financial aid programs. 

SCURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistios, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2008 and 
Spring 2013, Enrollment eomponent: and Spring 2009 and Spring 2014, Finanee component. See Digest of Education Statistics 201 4, tables 333.10, 333.40, 
and 333.55. 


Between 2007-08 and 2012-13, the percentage change 
in revenues from tuition and fees per full-time-equivalent 
(FTE) student varied by institutional control and level. 
Revenues per FTE student are reported in constant 
2013-14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI). During this period, revenues from tuition and 
fees per FTE student increased by 17 percent at public 
institutions (from $5,478 to $6,415) and by 7 percent at 
private nonprofit institutions (from $18,550 to $19,866). 
At private for-profit institutions, revenues from tuition 
and fees were 7 percent higher in 2012-13 than in 
2007-08 ($16,135 vs. $15,110). At public institutions, 
revenues from tuition and fees per FTE student at 4-year 
institutions were 19 percent higher in 2012—13 than in 
2007-08 ($8,802 vs. $7,422), and they were 1 percent 
higher at 2-year institutions ($2,394 vs. $2,367). At 
private nonprofit institutions, revenues from tuition and 
fees per FTE student were 7 percent higher at 4-year 
institutions ($19,926 vs. $18,604), while revenues were 
1 percent higher at 2-year institutions ($12,659 vs. 
$12,528). At private for-profit institutions, revenues from 


tuition and fees per FTE student at 4-year institutions 
were 8 percent higher in 2012—13 than they were in 
2007-08 ($16,313 vs. $15,124), and they were 3 percent 
higher at 2-year institutions ($15,496 vs. $15,065). 

At public institutions, revenues from tuition and fees were 
42 percent higher in 2012—13 than in 2007—08, whereas 
revenues from government sources were 7 percent higher. 
As a result, the percentage of revenues from tuition and 
fees was higher in 2012-13 (21 percent) than in 2007-08 
(18 percent), and the percentage of revenues from 
government sources was lower in 2012-13 (44 percent) 
than in 2007-08 (49 percent). 

Revenues per FTE student from all government sources at 
public institutions decreased by 11 percent from 2007-08 
to 2012-13 (from $15,237 to $13,520). In 2012-13, 
revenues per FTE student from all government sources 
were 6 percent lower than in 2007-08 at private nonprofit 
institutions ($7,769 vs. $8,259) and were 23 percent lower 
at private for-profit institutions ($853 vs $1,107). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 219 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 3. Revenues from government grants, contracts, and appropriations per fuil-time-equivalent (FTE) student for 
degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by source of funds and institutional control and level: 2007-08 
and 2012-13 


[In constant 201 3-1 4 dollars] 


Federal State and local 



Public Private Private Public Private Private 

nonprofit for-profit nonprofit for-profit 


Institutional control and level 

B 2007-08 □ 2012-13 

NOTE: Full-time-equivalent (FTE) student includes full-time students plus the full-time equivalent ot part-time students. Revenues per FTE student are reported 
in constant 2013-14 dollars, based on the Consumer Prioe Index (CPI) adjusted to a sohool-year basis. Revenue data are not comparable across institutional 
oontrol categories because Pell grants are included in the federal grant revenues at public institutions but tend to be inoluded in tuition and auxiliary 
enterprise revenues at private nonprofit and private tor-profit institutions. Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in 
Title IV federal financial aid programs. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2008 and 
Spring 2013. Enrollment component; and Spring 2009 and Spring 2014. Finance component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. tables 333.1 0, 333.40, 
and 333.55. 


The percentage change between 2007-08 and 2012-13 
in state and local government revenues per FTE student 
varied by institutional control and level. During this 
period, revenues per FTE student from state and 
local sources decreased by 24 percent at 4-year public 
institutions (from $12,748 to $9,686), 18 percent at 2-year 
public institutions (from $8,138 to $6,682), 32 percent at 
4-year private nonprofit institutions (from $871 to $588), 
51 percent at 2-year private nonprofit institutions (from 
$1,002 to $491), and 38 percent at private for-profit 2-year 
institutions (from $171 to $107). State and local revenues 
per FTE student were 37 percent higher in 2012-13 than 
in 2007-08 at 4-year private for-profit institutions ($59 vs. 
$43); however, the amounts remained relatively small. 

Revenues from federal sources have shown varying 
patterns of change between 2007-08 and 2012-13 
across degree-granting postsecondary institutions. At 
public institutions, federal revenues per FTE student 


were 16 percent higher in 2012—13 than in 2007—08 
($4,953 vs. $4,261). Federal funding per FTE student was 
5 percent higher in 2012-13 than in 2007-08 at 4-year 
public institutions ($5,910 vs. $5,642) and increased by 
63 percent at 2-year public institutions (from $2,051 to 
$3,340). Compared with 2007-08, revenues per FTE 
student from federal sources in 2012-13 were 3 percent 
lower at private nonprofit institutions ($7,387 vs. $7,182). 
At 4-year private nonprofit institutions, federal revenues 
were 3 percent lower in 2012-13 than in 2007-08 
($7,228 vs. $7,431); at 2-year private nonprofit institutions, 
federal revenues were 33 percent lower ($1,666 vs. 

$2,496). Revenues per FTE student from federal sources 
at private for-profit institutions were 24 percent lower in 
2012-13 than in 2007-08 ($784 vs. $1,034). At 4-year 
private for-profit institutions, federal revenues were 
18 percent lower in 2012-13 than in 2007-08 ($743 vs. 
$906); at 2-year private for-profit institutions, federal 
revenues were 36 percent lower ($932 vs. $1,450). 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
333.10, 333.40, and 333.55 

Related indicators: Expenses of Postsecondary Institutions 
(indicator 38) 


Glossary: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Full-time-equivalent 
(FTE) enrollment. Private for-profit institution. Private 
institution. Private nonprofit institution. Public school or 
institution. Revenue, Tuition and fees 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


220 The Condition of Education 2015 



This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Indicator 38 

Expenses of Postsecondary Institutions 

In 2012-13, instruction expenses per fuii-time-equivaient (FTE) student were $7,814 
(in constant 2013-14 dollars) at public institutions, $16,432 at private nonprofit 
institutions, and $3,893 at private for-profit institutions. Instruction was the largest 
expense category at public and private nonprofit institutions and the second 
largest expense category at private for-profit institutions. 


In academic year 2012-13, postsecondary institutions 
spent $499 billion (in current dollars). Total expenses were 
$311 billion at public institutions, $166 billion at private 
nonprofit institutions, and $22 billion at private for-profit 
institutions. Some data may not be comparable across 
institutions by control categories because of differences 
in accounting standards. Comparisons by institutional 
level (i.e., between 2-year and 4-year institutions) may 
also be limited because of different institutional missions. 
Two-year institutions tend to have limited instructional 
missions focused on student instruction and related 
activities that do not extend beyond providing a range of 
career-oriented programs at the certificate and associate 
degree levels, and preparing students for transfer to 


4-year institutions. Four-year institutions tend to have 
broader instructional missions that may include a range 
of programs at the undergraduate level, as well as more 
specialized graduate and professional programs. In 
addition, research activities, on-campus student housing, 
teaching hospitals, and auxiliary enterprises can have a 
substantial impact on the financial structure of 4-year 
colleges and universities. Expenses are grouped into 
broad categories, including salaries and wages, research, 
public service, academic support, student services, 
institutional support, operation and maintenance of 
plant, depreciation, scholarships and fellowships, auxiliary 
enterprises, hospitals, independent operations, interest, 
and other. 


Figure 1. Percentage of total expenses at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by purpose of expenses and 
control of institution; 2012-13 



Instruction Research and Student services, academic 

pubiic service support, and institutionai support 


Purpose of expenses 

Pubiic □ Private nonprofit □ Private for-profit 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2014, 
Finance component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, tables 334.10, 334.30, and 334.50. 


Instruction, including faculty salaries and benefits, is 
the largest single expense category at public and private 
nonprofit postsecondary institutions and the second 
largest category at private for-profit institutions. At public 


institutions in 2012-13, some 27 percent of total expenses 
were spent on instruction, compared with 33 percent at 
private nonprofit institutions and 25 percent at private 
for-profit institutions. The largest expense category 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


222 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


(65 percent) at private for-profit institutions in that year 
was for the combined expenditures of student services, 
academic support, and institutional support, which 
includes expenses associated with admissions, student 
activities, libraries, and administrative and executive 
activities. By comparison, student services, academic 
support, and institutional support made up 20 percent 
of total expenses at public institutions and 30 percent 
of total expenses at private nonprofit institutions. Other 
large categories of expenses at public institutions (i.e., 
those accounting for 8-11 percent of expenses) included 
hospitals, research, and institutional support. At private 
nonprofit institutions, some of the large categories (i.e., 
those accounting for 8-14 percent of expenses) were 
institutional support, research, hospitals, auxiliary 


enterprises (i.e., self-supporting operations, such as 
residence halls), academic support, and student services. 

In 2012-13, across all types of postsecondary institutional 
control, 2-year institutions spent a greater share of their 
total expenses on instruction than did 4-year institutions. 
The percentage of total expenses at public institutions 
for instruction was 35 percent at 2-year institutions, 
compared with 25 percent at 4-year institutions. 

At private nonprofit institutions, instruction accounted 
for 36 percent of total expenses at 2-year institutions 
and 33 percent at 4-year institutions; at private for-profit 
institutions, the percentages of total expenses for 
instruction at 2-year and 4-year institutions were 30 and 
23 percent, respectively. 


Figure 2. Expenses per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by purpose of 
expenses and control of institution; 2012-13 



Instruction Research and Student services, academic 

pubiic service support, and institutional support 


Expenses per FTE student 

Public □ Private nonprofit □ Private for-profit 


NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Full-time-equivalent (FTE) 
students include full-time students plus the full-time equivalent of part-time students. Expenses per FTE student are reported in constant 2013-14 dollars, based 
on the Consumer Price Index. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 201 3, 
Enrollment component; and Spring 2014, Finance component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. tables 334.1 0, 334.30, and 334.50. 


In 2012-13, total expenses per full-time-equivalent 
(FTE) student were much higher at private nonprofit 
postsecondary institutions ($50,145) than at public 
institutions ($29,338) and private for-profit institutions 
($ 15 , 745 ). Expenses per FTE student are reported here in 
constant 2013-14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price 
Index (CPI). Private nonprofit institutions spent more 
than twice as much per student on instruction ($16,432) 
than did public institutions ($7,814). Similarly, for the 
combined expenditures of student services, academic 
support, and institutional support a total of $15,284 
was spent at private nonprofit institutions versus $5,767 


spent at public institutions. Expenses per FTE student for 
research and public service, such as expenses for public 
broadcasting and community services, followed the same 
pattern, with private nonprofit institutions spending more 
than public institutions ($6,006 vs. $3,935). Expenses per 
FTE student for instruction were more than twice as high 
at public institutions as at private for-profit institutions 
($7,814 vs. $3,893), but expenses per FTE student for 
student services, academic support, and institutional 
support were higher at private for-profit institutions 
($10,303) than at public institutions ($5,767). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 223 



Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 3. Expenses per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student for instruction at 2-yeor and 4-year degree-granting 
postsecondary institutions, by level and control of institution: 2007-08 and 2012-13 


Instructional expense per FTE student [In constant 201 3-14 dollars] 



2-year Institutions 4-year Institutions 

Level and control of Institution 

I 2007-08 Q 2012-13 


NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Full-time-equivaient (FTE) 
students inciude full-time students plus the full-time equivalent of part-time students. Expenses per FTE student are reported in constant 2013-14 dollars, based 
on the Consumer Price Index. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2008 and 
Spring 2013, Enrollment component; and Spring 2009 and Spring 2014, Finance component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, tables 334.10, 334.30, 
and 334.50. 


Changes in expenses per FTE student for instruction, 
after adjusting for inflation, varied between 2007-08 and 
2012-13 at the different postsecondary institution types. 
At public 4-year institutions, instruction expenses per 
FTE student were 4 percent lower in 2012-13 ($9,630) 
than they were in 2007-08 ($10,067), and at public 
2-year institutions, these expenses were 8 percent lower in 
2012-13 ($4,755) than in 2007-08 ($5,167). At private 
nonprofit institutions, instruction expenses per FTE 


student in 2012-13 were 2 percent higher than they were 
in 2007-08 for 4-year institutions ($16,515 vs. $16,246), 
but they were 14 percent lower for 2-year institutions 
($6,580 vs. $7,615). At private for-profit institutions, 
instruction expenses in 2012—13 were 18 percent higher 
than they were in 2007-08 for 4-year institutions 
($3,575 vs. $3,024) and 1 percent higher for 2-year 
institutions ($5,034 vs. $5,002). 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
334.10,334.30, and 334.50 

Related indicators: Postsecondary Revenues by Source 
(indicator 37) 


Glossary: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Full-time-equivalent 
(FTE) enrollment. Private institution. Public school or 
institution. Revenue, Tuition and fees 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


224 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Indicator 39 

Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty 

From fall 1993 to fall 2013, the number of full-time faoulty In degree-granting 
postseoondary Institutions Inoreased by 45 peroenf (from 545,700 to 791,400), 
while the number of part-time faoulty inoreased by 104 peroenf (from 369,800 to 
752,700). As a result of the faster inorease in the number of part-time faoulty, the 
peroentage of faoulty who were part time inoreased from 40 to 49 peroenf during 
this period. 


In fall 2013, there were 1.5 million faculty in degree- professors, associate professors, assistant professors, 

granting postsecondary institutions: 51 percent were instructors, lecturers, assisting professors, adjunct 

full-time and 49 percent were part-time. Faculty include professors, and interim professors. 


Figure 1 . Number of faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by employment status: Selected years, 
fall 1993 through fall 2013 

Number 



Year 


NOTE: Includes faculty members with the title of professor, assooiote professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, assisting professor, adjunot professor, or 
interim professor (or the equivalent). Excludes graduate students with titles such as graduate or teaching fellow who assist senior faoulty. Degree-granting 
institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Data through 1 995 are for institutions of higher 
education, while later data are for degree-granting institutions. The degree-granting classification is very similar to the earlier higher education classification, 
but it includes more 2-year oolleges and excludes a few higher education institutions that did not grant degrees. Beginning in 2007, data include institutions 
with fewer than 15 full-time employees; these institutions did not report staff data prior to 2007. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Eduoation, National Center for Eduoation Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Eduoation Data System (IPEDS), "Fall Staff Survey" 
(IPEDS-S:93-99); IPEDS Winter 2001-02 through Winter 2011-1 2, Human Resources component. Fall Staff section; IPEDS Spring 2014, Human Resources 
component. Fall Staff section. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 315.1 0. 


From fall 1993 to fall 2013, the total number of faculty 
in degree-granting postsecondary institutions increased 
by 69 percent. The number of full-time faculty increased 
by 45 percent (from 545,700 to 791,400) over this time 
period, compared with an increase of 104 percent (from 
369,800 to 752,700) in the number of part-time faculty. 


As a result of the faster increase in the number of part- 
time faculty, the percentage of faculty who were part 
time increased from 40 to 49 percent during this period. 
Additionally, the percentage of all faculty who were female 
increased from 39 percent in 1993 to 49 percent in 2013. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


226 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Although the number of faculty increased at institutions 
of each control type from fall 1993 to fall 2013, the 
percentage increases in faculty were smaller for 
public institutions and private nonprofit institutions 
than for private for-profit institutions. During this 
period, the number of faculty increased by 49 percent 
(from 650,400 to 967,700) at public institutions, by 
77 percent (from 254,100 to 448,700) at private nonprofit 


institutions, and by 1,070 percent (from 10,900 to 
127,600) at private for-profit institutions. Despite the 
faster growth in the number of faculty at private for-profit 
institutions over this period, only 8 percent of all faculty 
were employed by private for-profit institutions in 2013, 
while 63 percent were employed by public institutions and 
29 percent by private nonprofit institutions. 


Figure 2. Percentage distribution of fuli-time instructional facuity in degree-granting postseoondary institutions, 
by aoademic rank, selected race/ethnicity, and sex: Fall 2013 



Percent 

□ White male 0 White female ^ Black □ Hispanic □ Asian/Pacific Islander 


NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Race categories exclude 
persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Estimates are based on full-time faculty whose race/ethnicity was known. Detail may not sum to 1 00 percent because data on 
some raciai/ethnic groups are not shown. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postseoondary Education Data System (IPEDS), IPEDS Spring 2014, 
Human Resources component. Fall Staff section. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074, table 315.20. 


In fall 2013, of all full-time faculty in degree-granting 
postsecondary institutions, 79 percent were White 
(43 percent were White males and 35 percent were White 
females), 6 percent were Black, 5 percent were Hispanic, 
and 10 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.' Making up 
less than 1 percent each were full-time faculty who were 
American Indian/Alaska Native and of Two or more 


races. Among full-time professors, 84 percent were White 
(58 percent were White males and 26 percent were White 
females), 4 percent were Black, 3 percent were Hispanic, 
and 9 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander. Making up less 
than 1 percent each were professors who were American 
Indian/Alaska Native and of Two or more races. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 1T7 








Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 3. Average salary of full-time instructional faculty on 9-month contracts in degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions, by academic rank: Selected years, 1993-94 through 2013-14 



1993-94 1995-96 1997-98 1999-2000 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2013-14 

Year 


NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate inTitie iV federai financial aid programs. Data through 1995-96 are 
for institutions of higher education, whiie later data are for degree-granting institutions. The degree-granting classification is very similar to the earlier higher 
education classification, but it includes more 2-year colleges and excludes a fe\A/ higher education institutions that did not grant degrees. Beginning in 2007, 
data include institutions with fewer than 1 5 full-time employees; these institutions did not report staff data prior to 2007. Salaries are reported in oonstant 
2013-14 dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Some data have been revised from previously published figures. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), "Salaries, Tenure, 
and Fringe Benefits of Full-Time Instructional Faculty Survey" (IPEDS-SA:93-99); and IPEDS Winter 2001 -02 through Winter 201 1 -1 2, Spring 201 3, and Spring 201 4, 
Fluman Resources component. Salaries section. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074. table 316.10. 


In academic year 2013-14, the average salary for full-time 
instructional faculty on 9-month contracts at degree- 
granting postsecondary institutions was $78,600; average 
salaries ranged from $54,200 for lecturers to $109,900 
for professors. The average salary (adjusted for inflation) 
for all full-time instructional faculty increased by 
9 percent from 1993-94 ($74,500) to 2009-10 ($80,900), 
but decreased by 3 percent from 2009-10 to 2013-14 
($78,600). A similar pattern was observed for individual 
academic ranks. The increases between 1993-94 and 
2009-10 were 15 percent for professors (from $97,500 
to $112,400), 10 percent for associate professors (from 
$72,800 to $80,400), 12 percent for assistant professors 
(from $60,500 to $67,500), 35 percent for instructors 
(from $46,300 to $62,700), and 8 percent for lecturers 
(from $52,600 to $56,600). From 2009-10 to 2013-14, 


average inflation-adjusted salaries across academic ranks 
exhibited decreases ranging from 2 to 7 percent. 

The average salary for all full-time instructional faculty 
was higher for males than for females in all years between 
1993-94 and 2013-14. In academic year 2013-14, the 
average salary was $85,500 for males and $70,400 for 
females. Between 1993-94 and 2013-14, the average 
salary increased by 7 percent for males and by 9 percent 
for females, after adjusting for inflation. Due to the 
faster increase in salary for females, the inflation-adjusted 
salary gap between male and female instructional faculty 
overall was slightly lower in 2013—14 than in 1993—94 
($15,200 vs. $15,300). The male-female gap for professors, 
however, was higher in 2013—14 than in 1993—94 
($17,400 vs. $11,400). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


228 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 4. Average salary of full-time instructional faculty on 9-month contracts in degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions, by control and level of institution: 2013-14 


Control and level of Institution 

Private for-profit 
Private nonprofit 2-year 
Private nonprofit other 4-year 
Private nonprofit master's 
Private nonprofit doctorai 
Pubiic 2-year 
Pubiic other 4-year 
Pubiic master's 
Pubiic doctorai 


[in constant 2013-14 doiiars] 



$0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 


Average salary 

NOTE: Doctoral institutions include institutions that awarded 20 or more doctor's degrees during the previous academic year. Master's institutions include 
institutions that awarded 20 or more master's degrees, but less than 20 doctor's degrees, during the previous academic year. Degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and partioipate in Title IV federal finanoial aid programs. Salaries are reported in constant 2013-14 dollars, 
based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Eduoation, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Eduoation Data System (IPEDS), IPEDS Spring 2014, 
Human Resources component. Salaries seotion. See Digest of Education Statistics 20i4, table 316.20. 


In academic year 2013-14, the average salary for full-time 
instructional faculty at private nonprofit institutions 
($86,800) was higher than the average salaries for 
full-time instructional faculty at public ($75,200) and 
at private for-profit institutions ($50,700). Among the 
specific types of public institutions and private nonprofit 
institutions, average salaries for instructional faculty 
were highest at private nonprofit doctoral institutions 
($101,700) and public doctoral institutions ($85,900). 
Average salaries were lowest for instructional faculty at 
private nonprofit 2-year institutions ($50,800) and public 
4-year institutions other than doctoral and master’s 
granting institutions ($61,100). Inflation- adjusted average 
salaries for instructional faculty were 1 percent lower in 
2013-14 than in 1999-2000 at public institutions and 
were 7 percent higher at private nonprofit institutions and 
24 percent higher at private for-profit institutions. 


In academic year 2013-14, approximately 49 percent 
of institutions had tenure systems. The percentage of 
institutions with tenure systems ranged from 1 percent 
at private for-profit institutions to almost 100 percent 
at public doctoral institutions. Of full-time faculty at 
institutions with tenure systems, 48 percent had tenure 
in 2013-14, compared with 54 percent in 1999-2000. 
From 1999-2000 to 2013-14, the percentage of full-time 
faculty having tenure decreased by 5 percentage points 
at public institutions, by 4 percentage points at private 
nonprofit institutions, and by 58 percentage points at 
private for-profit institutions. At institutions with tenure 
systems, the percentage of full-time instructional faculty 
having tenure was generally higher for males than for 
females. In 2013-14, some 57 percent of males had 
tenure, compared with 43 percent of females. 


Endnotes: 

' Percentages are based on full-time faculty whose race/ 
ethnicity was known. The numbers of full-time faculty 
in degree-granting institutions were large enough to be 


reported separately by sex for White faculty but not for 
faculty of any other racial/ethnic group. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Private institution. Public school or institution 

315.10, 315.20, 316.10, 316.20, and 316.80 

Related indicators: Characteristics of Degree-Granting 

Postsecondary Institutions (indicator 31), Characteristics of 

Postsecondary Students (indicator 32) 

For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 229 


Indicator 40 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Student Loan Volume and Default Rates 


In 2012-13, the average student loan amount of $7,000 represented a 39 percent 
increase over the 2000-01 amount of $5,100 (in constant 2013-14 dollars). Of the 
4.7 miilion students who entered the repayment phase on their student loans in 
fiscal year (FY) 201 1, some 651,000, or 13.7 percent, defaulted before the end of 
FY 2013. 


Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 authorized 
several student financial assistance programs — including 
federal grants, loans, and work study — to help offset the 
cost of attending a postsecondary institution. The largest 
federal loan program is the William D. Ford Federal 
Direct Loan Program; the federal government is the lender 


for this program. Interest on the loans made under the 
Direct Loan Program may be subsidized, based on need, 
while the student is in school. Most loans are payable 
over 10 years, beginning 6 months after the student does 
one of the following: graduates, drops below half-time 
enrollment, or withdraws from the academic program. 


Figure 1 . Average tuition and fees for full-time students at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level and 
control of institution: 2000-01 through 2012-13 

Amount [In constant 201 3-1 4 dollars] 



Year 


NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV tederal financial aid programs. Data on tuition and fees for 
public instifufions are for in-stafe students only. Data for private 2-year colleges must be interpreted with caution because of the low response rate of these 
institutions. Tuition and fees were weighfed by fhe number of full-fime-equivalent undergraduafes. 

SOURCE: U.S. Deparfmenf of Educafion, National Center for Educafion Sfafistios, Infegrafed Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2000 through 
Fall 201 2, Institutional Characteristics component. See Digest of Education Statistics 201 4, table 330.10. 


Average undergraduate tuition and fees for full-time 
students across all degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions in 2012-13 were $10,800 in constant 2013-14 
dollars — a 50 percent increase over the 2000-01 amount 
($7,200). At 4-year institutions, average tuition and fees 
in 2012-13 were $14,300 — a 45 percent increase over the 
2000-01 amount ($9,900). Among 4-year institutions, 
tuition and fees at public institutions had the largest 
percentage increase (74 percent, from $4,700 to $8,200) 
during this period; however, the largest dollar amount 
increase was at private nonprofit institutions (an $8,000 
increase, from $21,200 to $29,200). The tuition at private 
for-profit 4-year institutions was higher in 2000-01 


than in 2012-13 ($14,000 and $13,900, respectively). 

At 2-year institutions, average undergraduate tuition 
and fees were $3,400 in 2012-13 — a 48 percent increase 
over the 2000-01 amount ($2,300). As with 4-year 
institutions, the largest percentage increase in tuition and 
fees among 2-year institutions during this period occurred 
at public institutions (59 percent, from $1,800 to $2,800), 
while the largest dollar amount increase was at private 
nonprofit institutions (a $4,600 increase, from $9,400 to 
$14,000). The smallest change in tuition and fees at 2-year 
institutions occurred at private for-profit institutions 
(an 8 percent change, from $13,300 to $14,400). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


230 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 2. Percentage of first-time, fuli-time students receiving loan aid at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 
by level and control of institution: Selected years, 2000-01 through 2012-13 


Percent 



Year 


NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Titie iV federai financiai aid programs. Some data have been revised 
from previously published figures. Includes only loans made directly to students: does not include Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and other 
loans made directly to parents. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postseconddry Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2002 
through Spring 201 1 and Winter 2011-12 through Winter 201 3-1 4, Student Einancial Aid component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 331 .20. 


In 2012—13, some 49 percent of first-time, full-time 
undergraduate students received student loans. Between 
2000-01 and 2012-13, the percentage of students 
receiving loan aid increased by 9 percentage points 
(from 40 to 49 percent). During this period, the 
percentage of students receiving loan aid increased at all 
institution types, with the largest increase among 4-year 
institutions occurring at private for-profit institutions 
(21 percentage points, from 58 to 79 percent). The 


percentage of undergraduates receiving loans at public 
and private nonprofit 4-year institutions increased 10 and 
4 percentage points, respectively (from 41 to 51 percent 
at public institutions and from 58 to 62 percent at private 
nonprofit institutions). The percentage of students at 
2-year institutions receiving loans over this period 
increased from 15 to 27 percent at public institutions, 
from 49 to 61 percent at private nonprofit institutions, 
and from 67 to 76 percent at private for-profit institutions. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 231 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 3. Average loan amounts for first-time, full-time students receiving loan aid at degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions, by level and control of institution: Selected years, 2000-01 through 2012-13 



2000-01 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2012-13 


Year 


NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Some data have been revised 
from previousiy published figures, inciudes only loans made directly to students; does not include Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) and other 
loans made directly to parents. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2002 
through Spring 201 1 and Winter 2011-1 2 through Winter 2013-14, Student Financial Aid component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2074. table 331 .20. 


Along with the increase in the percentage of students 
taking out loans for their education, the average amount 
of money students borrowed also increased. Average 
annual student loan amounts for first-time, full-time 
degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students 
receiving loan aid increased between 2000-01 and 
2012-13, from $5,100 to $7,000, after adjusting for 
inflation (a 39 percent increase). Average loan amounts 
were higher in 2012—13 than in 2000—01 for all 
institution types. Among 4-year institutions, the largest 
percentage increase in the average loan amount was at 
public institutions (55 percent, from $4,300 to $6,700), 
while the smallest percentage change was at private 
for-profit institutions (9 percent higher, from $7,700 
to $8,400). The percentage increase at 4-year private 
nonprofit institutions was 50 percent (from $5,400 
to $8,000). Similar to 4-year institutions, the largest 
percentage increase in average loan amount among 2-year 
institutions was at public institutions (52 percent, from 
$3,200 to $4,900), while the smallest change was at 
private for-profit institutions (12 percent higher, from 


$7,200 to $8,100). The percentage increase at private 
nonprofit institutions was 17 percent (from $6,100 to 
$7,100). For both 4-year and 2-year institutions, private 
for-profit institutions had the largest inflation-adjusted 
average annual student loan amount in 2012-13 ($8,400 
for 4-year institutions and $8,100 for 2-year institutions). 

Approximately 4.7 million students entered the repayment 
phase of their student loans in fiscal year (FY) 2011, 
meaning that their student loans became due between 
October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011. The 3-year 
cohort default rate is the percentage of students who 
entered repayment on their loans in FY 2011 and 
defaulted prior to the end of the second following 
fiscal year. Of the 4.7 million students who entered the 
repayment phase on their student loans in FY 2011, some 
651,000, or 13.7 percent, defaulted before the end of 
FY 2013. For students in the Direct Loan Program or the 
Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program, default 
occurs when a payment has not been made for 270 days. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


232 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Finance and Resources 


Figure 4. Three-year student loan cohort detault rates at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level and 
control of institution: Fiscal years (FY) 2009 thrcugh 2011 


Percent 



2-year institutions 


4-year institutions 


Level and control of institution 

I FY2009 □ FY2010 □ FY2011 

NOTE: Default rates were calculated using student counts by institution from the Federai Student Aid Cohort Default Rote Database and the Integrated 
Postsecondary Education Data System (iPEDS) ciassification of institutions. The repayment phase is the period when student loans must be repaid and 
generally begins 6 months after a student leaves an institution. Default occurs when a borrower fails to make a payment for 270 days. The 3-year cohort 
default rate is the percentage of students who entered repayment during a given fiscal year and defaulted within the second following fiscal year. Degree- 
granting institutions grant assooiate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Includes borrowers from foreign and 
unclassified schools, which account for less than 1 percent of borrowers and are not included elsewhere. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, Direct Loan and Federal Family Education Loan Programs, Cohort Default Rate 
Database; retrieved October 1 3, 201 4, from http://www2.ed.aov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanaaement/sohooltvDerates.Ddf . See Digest of Education Statistics 
2074, table 332.50. 


The 3-year default rate for students in the FY 2011 cohort 
was 11.1 percent at 4-year degree-granting postsecondary 
institutions and 20.2 percent at 2-year degree-granting 
postsecondary institutions. The default rate for the 
FY 2011 cohort was highest at public 2-year institutions 
(20.6 percent) and lowest at private nonprofit 4-year 
institutions (7.0 percent). 

Across all institutions, the average 3-year default rate for 
the FY 2011 cohort (13.7 percent) was lower than the rate 


for the FY 2010 cohort (14.7 percent) and higher than the 
rate for the FY 2009 cohort (13.4 percent). The largest 
percentage point change occurred at private for-profit 
4-year institutions, which had a default rate that was 
4.4 percentage points lower in FY 2011 than in FY 2009 
(18.6 vs. 23.0 percent). 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables Glossary: Default rate. Degree-granting institutions, 

330.10, 331.20, and 332.50 Postsecondary education 

Related indicators: Price of Attending an Undergraduate 

Institution (indicator 35), Grants and Loan Aid to 

Undergraduate Students (indicator 36), Financing 

Postsecondary Education in the United States [The Condition 

of Education 2013 Spotlight] 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 233 


Indicator 41 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Completions 


Institutional Retention and Graduation Rates for 
Undergraduate Students 


About 59 percent of students who began seeking a bachelor's degree at a 4-year 
institution in fall 2007 completed that degree within 6 years. The graduation rate for 
females (62 percent) was higher than the rate for males (56 percent). 


Figure 1 . Percentage of first-time, full-time undergraduates retained at 2- and 4-year degree-granting institutions, 
by institution level, control of institution, and acceptance rate: 2012 to 2013 


Percent 


2-year institutions 


Percent 


4-year institutions 


100 r- ^ . 


90 


80 - 



Totai Public Private Private 

nonprofit tor-proft 



Total Public Private Private 

nonprotit for-protit 


I All acceptance rates' □ Open admissions Q Less than 25.0 percent accepted 


t Not applicable. 

’ Includes open admissions, all percentages of applicants accepted, and information not available. 

NOTE: Degree-granting institutions grant associate's or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Retained first-time 
undergraduates are those who returned to the institutions to continue their studies the following fall. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2014, 
Enrollment component; and Fall 201 2, Institutional Characteristics component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 326.30. 


In terms of student retention among first-time, full- 
time students who enrolled at 4-year degree-granting 
institutions in 2012, about 80 percent returned the 
following fall (in 2013). At public 4-year institutions, 
the overall retention rate was 80 percent, with a range 
from 60 percent at the least selective institutions (those 
with open admissions) to 95 percent at the most selective 
institutions (those that accept less than 25 percent of 
applicants). Retention rates for first-time students at 
private nonprofit 4-year institutions followed a similar 


pattern: the overall retention rate was 81 percent, ranging 
from 64 percent at the least selective institutions to 
97 percent at the most selective. The overall retention 
rate for first-time students at private for-profit 4-year 
institutions was 53 percent, with rates varying across 
institution selectivity levels. At 2-year institutions, the 
total retention rate for first-time students was 60 percent; 
it was highest at private for-profit institutions (68 percent), 
followed by public institutions and private nonprofit 
institutions (both 59 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


234 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Completions 

The graduation rates in this indicator are calculated to 
meet requirements of the 1990 Student Right-to-Know 
Act, which requires postsecondary institutions to report 
the percentage of students who complete their program 


within 150 percent of the normal time for completion 
(within 6 years for students pursuing a bachelor’s degree). 
Students who transfer and complete a degree at another 
institution are not included as completers in these rates. 


Figure 2. Graduation rate (within 6 years) trom first institution attended for first-time, full-time bacheior's degree-seeking 
students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by controi of institution and sex: Cohort entry year 2007 

Percent 

100 I 

90 

80 



All Institutions Public Private nonprofit Private for-profit 

Institutional control 

I Total I Males Q Females 


NOTE: Data are for 4-year degree-granting postsecondary Institutions participating in Title IV tederal financial aid programs. Graduation rates refer to students 
receiving bachelor's degrees from their initial institution of attendance only. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistios, Integrated Postseconddry Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 201 4, 
Graduation Rates component. See Digest of Education Statistios 2014, table 326.10. 


The 2013 6-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time 
undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a 
bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in 
fall 2007 was 59 percent. That is, 59 percent of first-time, 
full-time students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree 
at a 4-year institution in fall 2007 completed the degree at 
that institution by 2013. 

Among first-time, full-time undergraduate students who 
began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree- 


granting institution in fall 2007, the 6-year graduation 
rate was 58 percent at public institutions, 65 percent at 
private nonprofit institutions, and 32 percent at private 
for-profit institutions. The 6-year graduation rate was 
56 percent for males and 62 percent for females; it was 
higher for females than for males at both public (60 vs. 
55 percent) and private nonprofit institutions (68 vs. 

62 percent). However, at private for-profit institutions 
males had a higher graduation rate than females (36 vs. 
28 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 235 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Completions 


Figure 3. Graduation rate (within 6 years) trom first institution attended for first-time, full-time bacheior's degree-seeking 
students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by acceptance rate of institution: Cohort entry year 2007 

Percent 

100 

90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 

Open 90.0 percent or 75.0 to 89.9 50.0 to 74.9 25.0 to 49.9 Less than 25.0 

admissions more accepted percent accepted percent accepted percent accepted percent accepted 



Acceptance rate of institution 

NOTE: Data are tor 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions participating in Titie iV federai financial aid programs. Graduation rates refer to students 
receiving bachelor's degrees from their initial institutions of attendance only. 

SOURCE: U.S. Deparfment of Education, National Center for Education Statistios, Integrafed Posfseoonddry Education Dafa System (IPEDS), Spring 201 4, 
Graduation Rates component. See Digest of Education Statistios 2014, table 326.10. 


Six-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time students 
who began seeking a bachelor’s degree in fall 2007 
varied according to institutions’ level of selectivity. In 
particular, graduation rates were highest at postsecondary 
degree-granting institutions that were the most selective 
(i.e., had the lowest admissions acceptance rates), and 
graduation rates were lowest at institutions that were the 
least selective (i.e., had open admissions policies). For 
example, at 4-year institutions with open admissions 
policies, 34 percent of students completed a bachelor’s 
degree within 6 years. At 4-year institutions where the 
acceptance rate was less than 25 percent of applicants, the 
6-year graduation rate was 89 percent. 


Between 2008 and 2013, the overall 6-year graduation 
rate for first-time, full-time students who began seeking 
a bachelor’s degree at 4-year degree-granting institutions 
increased by 2 percentage points, from 57 percent (for 
students who began their studies in 2002 and graduated 
within 6 years) to 59 percent (for students who began 
their studies in 2007 and graduated within 6 years). 
During this period, 6-year graduation rates increased 
at public institutions (from 55 percent to 58 percent) 
and private for-profit institutions (from 22 percent to 
32 percent), but did not change significantly for private 
nonprofit institutions (around 65 percent). Also during 
this period, 6-year graduation rates increased for both 
males (from 54 percent to 56 percent) and females (from 
60 percent to 62 percent). 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


236 The Condition of Education 2015 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Completions 


Figure 4. Graduation rate from first institution attended within 150 percent of normai time for first-time, fuil-time degree/ 
certificate-seeking students of 2-yeor postsecondary institutions, by control of institution and sex: Cohort entry 
year 2010 


Percent 


100 I 


90 


80 - 


70 - 



All Institutions Pubiic Private nonprofit Private for-protit 


Institutional control 


I Total I Males Q Females 

NOTE: Data are for 2-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Graduation rates refer to students 
receiving associate's degrees or certificates from their initial institutions of attendance only. An example of completing a credential within 1 50 percent of the 
normal time required to do so is taking 3 years to complete a 2-year degree. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistios, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 201 4, 
Graduation Rates component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 326.20. 


At 2-year degree-granting institutions, 29 percent of first- 
time, full-time undergraduate students who began their 
pursuit of a certificate or associate’s degree in fall 2010 
attained it within 150 percent of the normal time required 
to do so (an example of completing a credential within 
150 percent of the normal time required to do so is taking 
3 years to complete a 2-year degree). This graduation rate 
was 20 percent at public 2-year institutions, 54 percent 
at private nonprofit 2-year institutions, and 63 percent at 


private for-profit 2-year institutions. At 2-year institutions 
overall, as well as at public, private nonprofit, and private 
for-profit 2-year institutions, the completion rate was 
higher for females than for males. At private nonprofit 
2-year institutions, for example, 58 percent of females 
versus 46 percent of males completed a certificate or 
associate’s degree within 150 percent of the normal 
time required. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, tables 
326.10, 326.20, and 326.30 

Related indicators: Educational Attainment (indicator 1) 


Glossary: Associate’s degree. Bachelor’s degree. Full-time 
enrollment. Higher education institutions, Part-time 
enrollment. Private institution. Public school or institution 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 237 



Indicator 42 


Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Completions 


Degrees Conferred by Public and Private Institutions 


The number of postsecondary degrees conferred at each degree level Increased 
between 2002-03 and 2012-13. The certificates below the associate's degree level 
awarded during this period increased by 49 percent, associate's degrees increased 
by 59 percent bachelor's degrees increased by 36 percent master's degrees 
increased by 45 percent and doctor's degrees increased by 44 percent 


Table 1. Number of degrees conferred by posfsecondary institufions and percentage change, by control of institution 
and ievei of degree: Academic years 1992-93, 2002-03, and 2012-13 


Level of degree 


and academic year 

Total 

Public 

Total 

Nonprofit 

For-profit 

Sub-associate certificates 

1992-93 






2002-03 

646,425 

355,727 

290,698 

36,926 

253,772 

2012-13 

966,084 

544,881 

421,203 

30,682 

390,521 

Percent change from 1992-93 to 2002-03 

t 

t 

t 

t 

t 

Percent change from 2002-03 to 201 2-1 3 

49.5 

53.2 

44.9 

-16.9 

53.9 

Associate's 

1992-93 

514,756 

430,321 

84,435 

47,713 

36,722 

2002-03 

634,016 

498,279 

135,737 

46,183 

89,554 

2012-13 

1,006,961 

772,588 

234,373 

55,617 

178,756 

Percent change from 1992-93 to 2002-03 

23.2 

15.8 

60.8 

-3.2 

143.9 

Percent change from 2002-03 to 201 2-1 3 

58.8 

55.1 

72.7 

20.4 

99.6 

Bachelor's 

1992-93 

1,165,178 

785.112 

380,066 

373,346 

6,720 

2002-03 

1,348,811 

875.596 

473,215 

442,060 

31,155 

2012-13 

1,840,164 

1.163,620 

676,544 

535,736 

140,808 

Percent change from 1992-93 to 2002-03 

15.8 

11.5 

24.5 

18.4 

363.6 

Percent change from 2002-03 to 201 2-1 3 

36.4 

32.9 

43.0 

21.2 

352.0 


Master's 


1992-93 

2002-03 

2012-13 


375,032 

213,843 

161,189 

159,562 

1,627 

518,699 

265,643 

253,056 

238,069 

14,987 

751,751 

346,813 

404,938 

326,984 

77,954 


Percent change from 1992-93 to 2002-03 
Percent change from 2002-03 to 201 2-1 3 


Doctor's’ 


1992-93 

112,072 

57.020 

55,052 

54,399 

653 

2002-03 

121,579 

61.611 

59,968 

58,894 

1,074 

2012-13 

175,038 

86.427 

88,611 

81,539 

7,072 

Percent change from 1992-93 to 2002-03 

8.5 

8.1 

8.9 

8.3 

64.5 

Percent change from 2002-03 to 201 2-1 3 

44.0 

40.3 

47.8 

38.5 

558.5 


— Not available, 
t Not applicable. 

’ Includes Ph.D., Ed.D., and comparable degrees at the doctoral level. Includes most degrees formerly classified as first-professional, such as M.D., D.D.S., and 
law degrees. 

NOTE: Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Eduoation, National Center for Eduoation Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Eduoation Data System (IPEDS), "Completions 
Survey" (IPEDS-C:93); and Fall 2003 and Fall 2013, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 318.40. 


The number of postsecondary degrees conferred at each 
degree level increased between 2002-03 and 2012-13. 
The certificates below the associate’s degree level awarded 
during this period increased by 49 percent, associate’s 
degrees increased by 59 percent, bachelor’s degrees 
increased by 36 percent, master’s degrees increased by 
45 percent, and doctor’s degrees increased by 44 percent. 


From 2011—12 to 2012—13, institutions conferred more 
bachelor’s and doctor’s degrees but fewer certificates, 
associate’s degrees, and master’s degrees. The total number 
of bachelor’s and doctor’s degrees each increased by 
3 percent. In contrast, the number of certificates conferred 
decreased by 2 percent, and associate’s and master’s 
degrees each decreased by 1 percent. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


238 The Condition of Education 2015 







Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Completions 


At all degree levels, the percentage increases from 
2002-03 to 2012-13 were greater than the percentage 
increases from 1992-93 to 2002-03.* For example, the 
number of bachelor’s degree conferred by institutions 
increased by 36 percent from 2002-03 to 2012-13, 
compared to 16 percent from 1992-93 to 2002-03. 
However, rates of increase differed by institutional control. 
Public institutions had greater percentage increases across 


all levels of degrees from 2002-03 to 2012-13 than from 
1992-93 to 2002-03. Private nonprofit institutions had 
greater percentage increases from 2002-03 to 2012-13 
than from 1992-93 to 2002-03 across all levels of degrees 
except master’s degrees. Conversely, private for-profit 
institutions experienced smaller percentage increases from 
2002-03 to 2012-13 than from 1992-93 to 2002-03 
across all degrees except doctor’s degrees. 


Figure 1. Percentage disfribution of certificates and associate's degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, 
by controi of institution: Academic years 2002-03 and 2012-13 


Percent 



Public □ Private nonprofit □ Private for-profit 

NOTE: Data are for postsecondary institutions participating in Titie iV federai financial aid programs. Detaii may not sum to totals because of rounding. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. Nationai Center for Education Statistics, integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Faii 2003 and Faii 
201 3, Completions component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 31 8.40. 


From 2002-03 to 2012-13, the number of certificates 
awarded by public institutions increased by 53 percent 
(from 356,000 to 545,000 certificates), and the number 
awarded by private for-profit institutions increased 
by 54 percent (from 254,000 to 391,000 certificates). 
However, the number of certificates awarded by private 
nonprofit institutions decreased by 17 percent (from 
37,000 to 31,000 certificates). 

The number of associate’s degrees awarded from 2002-03 
to 2012-13 increased by 55 percent for public institutions 


(from 498,000 to 773,000 degrees), by 20 percent for 
private nonprofit institutions (from 46,000 to 56,000 
degrees), and by 100 percent for private for-profit 
institutions (from 90,000 to 179,000 degrees). Due to 
these changes, the share of all associate’s degrees conferred 
by private for-profit institutions increased from 14 percent 
in 2002-03 to 18 percent in 2012-13, while the share 
conferred by public and private nonprofit institutions 
decreased during this time period from 79 to 77 percent 
and from 7 to 6 percent, respectively. 


For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


Postsecondary Education 239 




Chapter: 4/Postsecondary Education 
Section: Completions 


Figure 2. Percentage distribution ot bachelor's, master's, and doctor's degrees conterred by postsecondary 
institutions, by controi of institution: Academic years 2002-03 and 2012-13 


Percent 



Bachelor's Master's Doctor's' 

Public □ Private nonprofit □ Private for-profit 

’ Includes Ph.D., Ed.D., and comparable degrees at the doctoral level. Includes most degrees formerly olasslfied as first-professional such as M.D., D.D.S., and 
law degrees. 

NOTE: Data are for postsecondary Institutions participating in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statlstios, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2003 and Fall 
201 3, Completions oomponent. See Digest of Education Statistics 2014. table 31 8.40. 


From 2002-03 to 2012-13, the number of bachelor’s 
degrees awarded by public institutions increased by 
33 percent (from 876,000 to 1.2 million degrees), 
the number awarded by private nonprofit institutions 
increased by 21 percent (from 442,000 to 536,000 
degrees), and the number awarded by private for-profit 
institutions increased by 352 percent (from 31,000 to 

141.000 degrees). As a result, the shares of all bachelor’s 
degrees conferred by public and private nonprofit 
institutions decreased from 65 to 63 percent and from 
33 to 29 percent, respectively, while the share conferred 
by private for-profit institutions increased from 2 to 

8 percent. 

The number of master’s degrees awarded by public 
institutions increased by 31 percent (from 266,000 to 

347.000 degrees) from 2002-03 to 2012-13, yet the 
percentage of all master’s degrees conferred by these 
institutions declined from 51 to 46 percent. Similarly, the 
number of master’s degrees conferred by private nonprofit 
institutions increased by 37 percent (from 238,000 to 


327.000 degrees) from 2002-03 to 2012-13, but the 
percentage of all master’s degrees conferred by these 
institutions decreased (from 46 to 43 percent). In contrast, 
the number of master’s degrees conferred by private 
for-profit institutions increased by 420 percent (from 

15.000 to 78,000 degrees) from 2002-03 to 2012-13, 
resulting in an increase in these institutions’ share of total 
master’s degrees conferred, from 3 to 10 percent. 

From 2002-03 to 2012-13, the number of doctor’s 
degrees conferred increased by 40 percent at public 
institutions (from 61,600 to 86,400 degrees), by 
38 percent at private nonprofit institutions (from 58,900 
to 81,500 degrees), and by 558 percent at private for-profit 
institutions (from 1,100 to 7,100 degrees). Public and 
private nonprofit institutions’ shares of all doctor’s degrees 
conferred decreased from 2002-03 to 2012-13 (from 
51 to 49 percent and from 48 to 47 percent, respectively), 
while private for-profit institutions’ share increased (from 
1 to 4 percent). 


Endnotes: 

* The number of sub-associate certificates conferred in 
1992-93 is not available; therefore, certificates are not 
included in these comparisons. 


Reference tables: Digest of Education Statistics 2014, Glossary: Associate’s degree. Bachelor’s degree. Doctor’s degree, 

table 318.40 Master’s degree, Private institution, Public school or institution 

Related indicators: Undergraduate Degree Fields 
(indicator 33), Graduate Degree Fields (indicator 34) 

For more information, see the Reader’s Guide and the Guide to Sources. 


240 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Guide to Sources 

National Center for Education Statistics 
(NCES) 

Common Core of Data 

The Common Core of Data (CCD) is NCES’s primary 
database on public elementary and secondary education in 
the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national 
statistical database of all public elementary and secondary 
schools and school districts containing data designed to be 
comparable across all states. This database can be used to 
select samples for other NCES surveys and provide basic 
information and descriptive statistics on public elementary 
and secondary schools and schooling in general. 

The CCD collects statistical information annually 
from approximately 100,000 public elementary and 
secondary schools and approximately 18,000 public 
school districts (including supervisory unions and regional 
education service agencies) in the 50 states, the District 
of Columbia, Department of Defense (DoD) dependents 
schools, the Bureau of Indian Education, Puerto Rico, 
American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana 
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Three categories of 
information are collected in the CCD survey: general 
descriptive information on schools and school districts; 
data on students and staff; and fiscal data. The general 
descriptive information includes name, address, phone 
number, and type of locale; the data on students and staff 
include selected demographic characteristics; and the 
fiscal data pertain to revenues and current expenditures. 

The EDThctr data collection system is the primary 
collection tool for the CCD. NCES works collaboratively 
with the Department of Education’s Performance 
Information Management Service to develop the CCD 
collection procedures and data definitions. Coordinators 
from State Education Agencies (SEAs) submit the CCD 
data at different levels (school, agency, and state) to the 
EDThctr collection system. Prior to submitting CCD files 
to 'EDFacts, SEAs must collect and compile information 
from their respective Local Education Agencies (LEAs) 
through established administrative records systems within 
their state or jurisdiction. 

Once SEAs have completed their submissions, the 
CCD survey staff analyzes and verifies the data for 
quality assurance. Even though the CCD is a universe 
collection and thus not subject to sampling errors, 
nonsampling errors can occur. The two potential sources 
of nonsampling errors are nonresponse and inaccurate 
reporting. NCES attempts to minimize nonsampling 
errors through the use of annual training of SEA 
coordinators, extensive quality reviews, and survey editing 
procedures. In addition, each year, SEAs are given the 
opportunity to revise their state-level aggregates from the 
previous survey cycle. 


The CCD survey consists of five components: The Public 
Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, the Local 
Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey, the 
State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary 
Education, the National Public Education Financial 
Survey (NPEFS), and the School District Fiscal Data 
Survey (F-33). 

Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey 

The Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe 
Survey includes all public schools providing education 
services to prekindergarten, kindergarten, grade 1-12, 
and ungraded students. For school year (SY) 2012-13, 
the survey included records for each public elementary 
and secondary school in the 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana 
Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian 
Education (BIE). The DoD dependents schools (overseas 
and domestic) and American Samoa did not report data 
for SY 2012-13. 

The Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey 
includes data for the following variables: NCES school 
ID number, state school ID number, name of the school, 
name of the agency that operates the school, mailing 
address, physical location address, phone number, school 
type, operational status, locale code, latitude, longitude, 
county number, county name, full-time-equivalent (FTE) 
classroom teacher count, low/high grade span offered, 
congressional district code, school level, students eligible 
for free lunch, students eligible for reduced-price lunch, 
total students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, 
and student totals and detail (by grade, by race/ethnicity, 
and by sex). The survey also contains flags indicating 
whether a school is Title I eligible, schoolwide Title I 
eligible, a magnet school, a charter school, a shared-time 
school, or a BIE school, as well as which grades are offered 
at the school. 

Local Education Agency (School District) Universe 

The coverage of the Local Education Agency Universe 
Survey includes all school districts and administrative 
units providing education services to prekindergarten, 
kindergarten, grade 1-12, and ungraded students. The 
CCD Local Education Agency Universe Survey includes 
records for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
Rico, the Bureau of Indian Education, American Samoa, 
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, and the DoD dependents schools (overseas and 
domestic). 

The Local Education Agency Universe Survey includes 
the following variables: NCES agency ID number, state 
agency ID number, agency name, phone number, mailing 
address, physical location address, agency type code, 
supervisory union number, American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) state and county code, county name, 
core based statistical area (CBSA) code, metropolitan/ 


242 The Condition of Education 2015 


micropolitan code, metropolitan status code, district 
locale code, congressional district code, operational status 
code, BIE agency status, low/high grade span offered, 
agency charter status, number of schools, number of 
full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers, number of ungraded 
students, number of PK-12 students, number of special 
education/individualized Education Program (lEP) 
students, number of English language learner (ELL) 
students, instructional staff fields, support staff fields, and 
a flag indicating whether student counts by race/ethnicity 
were reported by five or seven racial/ethnic categories. 

State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/ 
Secondary Education 

The State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/ 
Secondary Education for the 2012-13 school year 
provides state-level, aggregate information about students 
and staff in public elementary and secondary education. 

It includes data from the 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the 
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. 
The DoD dependents schools (overseas and domestic) 
and the Bureau of Indian Education are also included 
in the survey universe. This survey covers public school 
student membership by grade, race/ethnicity, and state or 
jurisdiction and covers number of staff in public schools 
by category and state or jurisdiction. Beginning with the 
2006-07 school year, the number of diploma recipients 
and other high school completers are no longer included 
in the State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/ 
Secondary Education file. These data are now published 
in the public-use Common Core of Data State Dropout 
and Completion Data File. 

National Public Education Einancial Survey 

The purpose of the National Public Education Financial 
Survey (NPEFS) is to provide district, state, and federal 
policymakers, researchers, and other interested users with 
descriptive information about revenues and expenditures 
for public elementary and secondary education. The data 
collected are useful to (1) chief officers of state education 
agencies; (2) policymakers in the executive and legislative 
branches of federal and state governments; (3) education 
policy and public policy researchers; and (4) the public, 
journalists, and others. 

Data for NPEFS are collected from SEAs in the 50 
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American 
Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands. The data file is organized by state 
or jurisdiction and contains revenue data by funding 
source; expenditure data by function (the activity being 
supported by the expenditure) and object (the category 
of expenditure); average daily attendance data; and total 
student membership data from the CCD State Nonfiscal 
Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education. 


School District Einance Survey 

The purpose of the School District Finance Survey (F-33) 
is to provide finance data for all local education agencies 
(LEAs) that provide free public elementary and secondary 
education in the United States. National and state totals 
are not included (national- and state-level figures are 
presented, however, in the National Public Education 
Financial Survey [NPEFS]). 

Both NCES and the Governments Division of the U.S. 
Census Bureau collect public school system finance 
data, and they collaborate in their efforts to gather these 
data. The Census Bureau acts as the primary collection 
agent and produces two data files: one for distribution 
and reporting by the Census Bureau and the other for 
distribution and reporting by NCES. 

The FY 11 F-33 data file contains 18,297 records 
representing the public elementary and secondary 
education agencies in the 50 states and the District 
of Columbia. The file includes variables for revenues 
by source, expenditures by function and object, 
indebtedness, assets, student membership counts, as well 
as identification variables. 

The F-33 data file for FY 12 contains 18,373 records 
representing the public elementary and secondary 
education agencies in the 50 states and the District of 
Columbia. The file includes the following types of school 
finance data: revenue and expenditure totals by state and 
the 100 largest LEAs; revenues for LEAs, by source of 
funds (federal, state, and local); expenditures by function 
and object totals by state; current expenditures per pupil 
by state and the 100 largest LEAs; interest on debt; and 
capital outlay. 

Teacher Compensation Survey 

The Teacher Compensation Survey (TCS) is a research 
and development effort designed to assess the feasibility 
of collecting and publishing teacher-level data from 
the administrative records residing in state education 
agencies. Twenty-three (23) states participated in the TCS 
for school year 2008-09. Participating states provided 
data on salaries, years of teaching experience, highest 
degree earned, race/ethnicity, and gender for each public 
school teacher. 

Further information on the nonfiscal CCD data may be 
obtained from 

Patrick Keaton 

Administrative Data Division 
Elementary and Secondary Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
patrick.keaton@ed.gov 
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd 


Guide to Sources 243 


Further information on the fiscal CCD data may be 
obtained from 

Stephen Cornman 
Administrative Data Division 
Elementary and Secondary Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
stephen.cornman(g>ed.gov 
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd 

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 
Kindergarten Class of 201 0-1 1 
(ECLS-K:2011) 

The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten 
Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011) is providing detailed 
information on the school achievement and experiences 
of students throughout their elementary school years. 

The students participating in the ECLS-K:2011 are 
being followed longitudinally from the kindergarten year 
(the 2010-11 school year) through the spring of 2016, 
when most of them are expected to be in fifth grade. 

This sample of students is designed to be nationally 
representative of all students who were enrolled in 
kindergarten or who were of kindergarten age and being 
educated in an ungraded classroom or school in the 
United States in the 2010-11 school year, including those 
in public and private schools, those who attended full-day 
and part-day programs, those who were in kindergarten 
for the first time, and those who were kindergarten 
repeaters. Students who attended early learning centers 
or institutions that offered education only through 
kindergarten are included in the study sample and 
represented in the cohort. 

The ECLS-K:2011 places emphasis on measuring 
students’ experiences within multiple contexts and 
development in multiple domains. The design of the study 
includes the collection of information from the students, 
their parents/guardians, their teachers, and their schools. 
Information was collected from their before- and after- 
school care providers in the kindergarten year. 

A nationally representative sample of approximately 
18,170 children from about 1,310 schools participated 
in the base-year administration of the ECLS-K:2011 in 
the 2010-11 school year. The sample included children 
who attended both public and private schools and 
children from different racial/ethnic and socioeconomic 
backgrounds. Asian/Pacific Islander students were 
oversampled to ensure that the sample included enough 
students of this race/ethnicity to make accurate estimates 
for the group as a whole. Seven data collections have 
been conducted to date: fall and spring of the children’s 
kindergarten year (the base year), fall 2011 and spring 
2012 (the first-grade year), fall 2012 and spring 2013 
(the second-grade year), and spring 2014. Additional data 


collections are planned for the spring of 2015 and the 
spring of 2016. Although the study refers to later rounds 
of data collection by the grade the majority of children 
are expected to be in (that is, the modal grade for children 
who were in kindergarten in the 2010-11 school year), 
children are included in subsequent data collections 
regardless of their grade level. 

A total of approximately 780 of the 1,310 originally 
sampled schools participated during the base year of the 
study. This translates to a weighted unit response rate 
(weighted by the base weight) of 63 percent for the base 
year. In the base year, the weighted child assessment unit 
response rate was 87 percent for the fall data collection 
and 85 percent for the spring collection, and the weighted 
parent unit response rate was 74 percent for the fall 
collection and 67 percent for the spring collection. 

Fall and spring data collections were also conducted in the 
2011—12 school year, when the majority of the children 
were in the first grade. The fall first-grade data collection 
was conducted within a 33 percent subsample of the full 
base-year sample, and the spring first-grade collection was 
conducted within the full base-year sample. In 2011-12 
(the first-grade year), the weighted child assessment unit 
response rate was 89 percent for the fall data collection 
and 88 percent for the spring collection, and the weighted 
parent unit response rate was 87 percent for the fall data 
collection and 76 percent for the spring data collection. 

Further information on the ECLS-K:2011 may be 
obtained from 

Gail Mulligan 

Sample Surveys Division 

Longitudinal Surveys Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

ecls@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/birth.asp 

Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 

The Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002) 
is a longitudinal survey that is monitoring the transitions 
of a national probability sample of lOth-graders in public. 
Catholic, and other private schools. Survey waves follow 
both students and high school dropouts and monitor the 
transition of the cohort to postsecondary education, the 
labor force, and family formation. 

In the base year of the study, of 1,200 eligible contacted 
schools, 750 participated, for an overall weighted school 
participation rate of approximately 68 percent (62 percent 
unweighted). Of 17,600 selected eligible students, 

15,400 participated, for an overall weighted student 
response rate of approximately 87 percent. (School and 
student weighted response rates reflect use of the base 
weight [design weight] and do not include nonresponse 


244 The Condition of Education 2015 


adjustments.) Information for the study is obtained not 
just from students and their school records, but also from 
the students’ parents, their teachers, their librarians, and 
the administrators of their schools. 

The first follow-up was conducted in 2004, when most 
sample members were high school seniors. Base-year 
students who remained in their base schools were 
resurveyed and tested in mathematics. Sample freshening 
was conducted to make the study representative of spring 
2004 high school seniors nationwide. Students who were 
not still at their base schools were all administered a 
questionnaire. 

The second follow-up, conducted in 2006, continued 
to follow the sample of students into postsecondary 
education, the workforce, or both. The third follow-up 
data (2012) were released in January 2014. In addition, 
postsecondary transcripts were collected in 2013, and it is 
expected that the resulting data will be made available in 
mid-2015. 

Further information on ELS:2002 may be obtained from 

Elise Christopher 
Sample Surveys Division 
Longitudinal Surveys Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
elise.christopher@ed.gov 
http://nces.ed.gOv/surveys/els2002 

Integrated Postsecondary Education 
Data System 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
(IPEDS) surveys approximately 7,500 postsecondary 
institutions, including universities and colleges, as well as 
institutions offering technical and vocational education 
beyond the high school level. IPEDS, an annual universe 
collection that began in 1986, replaced the Higher 
Education General Information Survey (HEGIS). In order 
to present data in a timely manner, “provisional” IPEDS 
data are used. These data have been fully reviewed, 
edited, and imputed, but do not incorporate data revisions 
submitted by institutions after the close of data collection. 

IPEDS consists of interrelated survey components that 
provide information on postsecondary institutions, 
student enrollment, programs offered, degrees and 
certificates conferred, and both the human and financial 
resources involved in the provision of institutionally 
based postsecondary education. Prior to 2000, the IPEDS 
survey had the following subject-matter components: 
Graduation Rates; Fall Enrollment; Institutional 
Characteristics; Completions; Salaries, Tenure, and Fringe 
Benefits of Full-Time Faculty; Fall Staff; Finance; and 
Academic Libraries (in 2000, the Academic Libraries 
component became a survey separate from IPEDS). 


Since 2000, IPEDS survey components occurring in 
a particular collection year have been organized into 
three seasonal collection periods: fall, winter, and spring. 
The Institutional Characteristics and Completions 
components first took place during the fall 2000 
collection; the Employees by Assigned Position (EAP), 
Salaries, and Fall Staff components first took place during 
the winter 2001—02 collection; and the Enrollment, 
Student Financial Aid, Finance, and Graduation Rates 
components first took place during the spring 2001 
collection. In the winter 2005-06 data collection, the 
Employees by Assigned Position, Fall Staff and Salaries 
components were merged into the Human Resources 
component. During the 2007-08 collection year, the 
Enrollment component was broken into two separate 
components: 12-Month Enrollment (taking place in the 
fall collection) and Fall Enrollment (taking place in the 
spring collection). In the 2011—12 IPEDS data collection 
year, the Student Financial Aid component was moved 
to the winter data collection to aid in the timing of the 
net price of attendance calculations displayed on the 
College Navigator ( http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator ). 

In the 2012-13 IPEDS data collection year, the Human 
Resources component was moved to the spring data 
collection. 

Beginning in 2008—09, the first-professional degree 
category was combined with the doctor’s degree category. 
However, some degrees formerly identified as first- 
professional that take more than two full-time-equivalent 
academic years to complete, such as those in Theology 
(M.Div, M.H.L./Rav), are included in the Master’s degree 
category. Doctor’s degrees were broken out into three 
distinct categories: research/scholarship, professional 
practice, and other doctor’s degrees. 

IPEDS race/ethnicity data collection also changed in 
2008-09. The “Asian” race category is now separate 
from a “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander” 
category. Survey takers also have the option of identifying 
themselves as being of “Two or more races.” To reflect the 
recognition that “Hispanic” refers to ethnicity, not race, 
the new Hispanic category reads “Hispanics of any race.” 

The degree-granting institutions portion of IPEDS 
is a census of colleges that award associate’s or higher 
degrees and are eligible to participate in Title IV financial 
aid programs. Prior to 1993, data from technical and 
vocational institutions were collected through a sample 
survey. Beginning in 1993, all data are gathered in a 
census of all postsecondary institutions. The tabulations 
on “institutional characteristics” from 1993 forward are 
based on lists of all institutions and are not subject to 
sampling errors. 

The classification of institutions offering college and 
university education changed as of 1996. Prior to 1996, 
institutions that had courses leading to an associate’s 
or higher degree or that had courses accepted for credit 
toward those degrees were considered higher education 


Guide to Sources 245 


institutions. Higher education institutions were accredited 
by an agency or association that was recognized by the 
U.S. Department of Education or were recognized directly 
by the Secretary of Education. Data presentations that 
use only this standard are labeled “higher education.” The 
newer standard includes institutions that award associate’s 
or higher degrees and that are eligible to participate in 
Title IV federal financial aid programs. Presentations 
that contain any data according to this standard are 
labeled “degree-granting” institutions. Time-series data 
presentations may contain data from both series, and 
they are labeled accordingly. The impact of this change 
on data collected in 1996 was not large. For example, 
data on faculty salaries and benefits were only affected 
to a very small extent. Also, degrees awarded at the 
bachelor’s level or higher were not heavily affected. The 
largest impact was on private 2-year college enrollment. In 
contrast, most of the data on public 4-year colleges were 
affected to a minimal extent. The impact on enrollment 
in public 2-year colleges was noticeable in certain states, 
but was relatively small at the national level. Overall, 
total enrollment for all institutions was about one-half of 
1 percent higher in 1996 for degree-granting institutions 
than for higher education institutions. 

Prior to the establishment of IPEDS in 1986, HEGIS 
acquired and maintained statistical data on the 
characteristics and operations of institutions of higher 
education. Implemented in 1966, HEGIS was an annual 
universe survey of institutions accredited at the college 
level by an agency recognized by the Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Education. These institutions were listed 
in NCES’s Education Directory, Colleges and Universities. 

HEGIS surveys collected information on institutional 
characteristics, faculty salaries, finances, enrollment, and 
degrees. Since these surveys, like IPEDS, were distributed 
to all higher education institutions, the data presented are 
not subject to sampling error. However, they are subject to 
nonsampling error, the sources of which varied with the 
survey instrument. 

The NCES Taskforce for IPEDS Redesign recognized 
that there were issues related to the consistency of data 
definitions as well as the accuracy, reliability, and validity 
of other quality measures within and across surveys. The 
IPEDS redesign in 2000 provided institution-specific 
web-based data forms. While the new system shortened 
data processing time and provided better data consistency, 
it did not address the accuracy of the data provided by 
institutions. 

Beginning in 2003—04 with the Prior Year Data Revision 
System, prior-year data have been available to institutions 
entering current data. This allows institutions to make 
changes to their prior-year entries either by adjusting the 
data or by providing missing data. These revisions allow 
the evaluation of the data’s accuracy by looking at the 
changes made. 


NCES conducted a study (NCES 2005-175) of the 
2002-03 data that were revised in 2003-04 to determine 
the accuracy of the imputations, track the institutions 
that submitted revised data, and analyze the revised data 
they submitted. When institutions made changes to their 
data, it was assumed that the revised data were the “true” 
data. The data were analyzed for the number and type 
of institutions making changes, the type of changes, the 
magnitude of the changes, and the impact on published 
data. 

Because NCES imputes missing data, imputation 
procedures were also addressed by the Redesign Taskforce. 
For the 2003-04 assessment, differences between revised 
values and values that were imputed in the original files 
were compared (i.e., revised value minus imputed value). 
These differences were then used to provide an assessment 
of the effectiveness of imputation procedures. The size of 
the differences also provides an indication of the accuracy 
of imputation procedures. To assess the overall impact 
of changes on aggregate IPEDS estimates, published 
tables for each component were reconstructed using the 
revised 2002-03 data. These reconstructed tables were 
then compared to the published tables to determine the 
magnitude of aggregate bias and the direction of this bias. 

The fall 2011 and spring 2012 data collections were 
entirely web-based. Data were provided by “keyholders,” 
institutional representatives appointed by campus chief 
executives, who were responsible for ensuring that survey 
data submitted by the institution were correct and 
complete. Because Title IV institutions are the primary 
focus of IPEDS and because these institutions are 
required to respond to the survey, response rates for Title 
IV institutions in the fall 2011 IPEDS collection were 
high. The Institutional Characteristics (IC) component 
response rate among all Title IV entities was 100.0 
percent (all 7,479 Title IV entities responded). In addition, 
the response rates for the Completions and 12-Month 
Enrollment components were also 100.0 percent. More 
details on the accuracy and reliability of IPEDS data can 
be found in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 
System Data Quality Study (NCES 2005-175). 

Further information on IPEDS may be obtained from 

Richard Reeves 

Administrative Data Division 

Postsecondary Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

richard.reeves@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds 

Fall (12-Month Enrollment) 

Data on 12-month enrollment are collected for award 
levels ranging from postsecondary certificates of less 
than 1 year to doctoral degrees. The 12-month period 
during which data are collected is July 1 through June 30. 


246 The Condition of Education 2015 


Data are collected by race/ethnicity and gender and 
include unduplicated headcounts and instructional 
activity (contact or credit hours). These data are also 
used to calculate a full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment 
based on instructional activity. FTE enrollment is 
useful for gauging the size of the educational enterprise 
at the institution. Prior to the 2007-08 IPEDS data 
collection, the data collected in the 12-Month Enrollment 
component were part of the Fall Enrollment component, 
which is conducted during the spring data collection 
period. However, to improve the timeliness of the data, 
a separate 12-Month Enrollment survey component was 
developed in 2007. These data are now collected in the 
fall for the previous academic year. Of the 7,387 Title IV 
entities that were expected to respond to the 12-Month 
Enrollment component of the fall 2013 data collection, 
7,386 responded, for an approximate response rate of 
100.0 percent. 

Further information on the IPEDS 12-Month Enrollment 
component may be obtained from 

Moussa Ezzeddine 

Administrative Data Division 

Postsecondary Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

moussa.ezzeddine@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds 

Fall ( Completions) 

This survey was part of the HEGIS series throughout its 
existence. However, the degree classification taxonomy 
was revised in 1970-71, 1982-83, 1991-92, and 

2002- 03. Collection of degree data has been maintained 
through IPEDS. 

The nonresponse rate does not appear to be a significant 
source of nonsampling error for this survey. The response 
rate over the years has been high; for the fall 2013 
Completions component, it was about 100.0 percent. 
Because of the high response rate, there was no need to 
conduct a nonresponse bias analysis. Imputation methods 
for the fall 2013 Completions component are discussed in 
Postsecondary Institutions and Cost of Attendance in 2013— 
14; Degrees and Other Awards Conferred, 2012—13; and 
12-Month Enrollment, 2012—13 (NCES 20l4-066rev). 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Data 
Quality Study (NCES 2005-175) indicated that most Title 
IV institutions supplying revised data on completions in 

2003- 04 were able to supply missing data for the prior 
year. The small differences between imputed data for 
the prior year and the revised actual data supplied by the 
institution indicated that the imputed values produced by 
NCES were acceptable. 


Further information on the IPEDS Completions 
component may be obtained from 

Andrew Mary 

Administrative Data Division 

Postsecondary Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

andrew.mary@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds 

Fall (Institutional Characteristics) 

This survey collects the basic information necessary to 
classify institutions, including control, level, and types 
of programs offered, as well as information on tuition, 
fees, and room and board charges. Beginning in 2000, 
the survey collected institutional pricing data from 
institutions with first-time, full-time, degree/certificate- 
seeking undergraduate students. Unduplicated full-year 
enrollment counts and instructional activity are now 
collected in the Fall Enrollment survey. Beginning in 
2008-09, student financial aid data collected include 
greater detail. The overall unweighted response rate was 
100.0 percent for Title IV degree-granting institutions for 
2009 data. 

In the fall 2013 data collection, the response rate for 
the Institutional Characteristics component among all 
Title IV entities was 100.0 percent: Of the 7,477 Title IV 
entities expected to respond to this component, all 
responded. Data from six institutions that responded to 
the Institutional Characteristics component contained 
item nonresponse, however; thus, these missing items 
were imputed. Imputation methods for the fall 2013 
Institutional Characteristics component are discussed 
in the 2013-14 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 
System (IPEDS) Methodology Report (NCES 2014-067). 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
Data Quality Study (NCES 2005-175) looked at tuition 
and price in Title IV institutions. Only 8 percent of 
institutions in 2002-03 and 2003-04 reported the same 
data to IPEDS and Thomson Peterson consistently across 
all selected data items. Differences in wordings or survey 
items may account for some of these inconsistencies. 

Further information on the IPEDS Institutional 
Characteristics component may be obtained from 

Gigi Jones 

Administrative Data Division 

Postsecondary Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

gigi.iones@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds 


Guide to Sources 247 


Winter (Student Financial Aid) 

This component was part of the spring data collection 
from IPEDS data collection years 2000-01 to 2010-11, 
but it moved to the winter data collection starting with 
the 2011-12 IPEDS data collection year. This move 
will aid in the timing of the net price of attendance 
calculations displayed on College Navigator ( http://nces. 
ed.gov/collegenavigator) . 

Financial aid data are collected for undergraduate 
students. Data are collected regarding federal grants, state 
and local government grants, institutional grants, and 
loans. The collected data include the number of students 
receiving each type of financial assistance and the average 
amount of aid received by type of aid. Beginning in 
2008-09, student financial aid data collected includes 
greater detail on types of aid offered. 

In the winter 2013-14 data collection, the Student 
Financial Aid component collected data on the number 
of undergraduate students awarded aid and the amount 
of aid awarded, with particular emphasis on first-time, 
full-time degree- and certificate-seeking undergraduate 
students awarded financial aid for the 2012-13 academic 
year. Of the 7,082 Title IV institutions expected to 
respond to the Student Financial Aid component, 7,079 
Title IV institutions responded, resulting in a response 
rate of about 100.0 percent. 

Further information on the IPEDS Student Financial Aid 
component may be obtained from 

Gigi Jones 

Administrative Data Division 

Postsecondary Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

gigi.iones@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds 

Winter (Graduation Rates and Graduation Rates 
200 Percent) 

In IPEDS data collection years 2012-13 and earlier, the 
Graduation Rates and 200 Percent Graduation Rates 
components were collected during the spring collection. 

In the IPEDS 2013-14 data collection year, however, 
the Graduation Rates and 200 Percent Graduation Rates 
collections were moved to the winter data collection. 

The 2013-14 Graduation Rates component collected 
counts of full-time, first-time degree- and certificate- 
seeking undergraduate students beginning their 
postsecondary education in the specified cohort year 
and their completion status as of August 31, 2013 
(150 percent of normal program completion time) at the 
same institution where the students started. Four-year 
institutions used 2007 as the cohort year, while less-than- 


4-year institutions used 2010 as the cohort year. The 
response rate for this component was about 100.0 percent. 

The 2013-14 200 Percent Graduation Rates component 
collected counts of full-time, first-time degree- and 
certificate-seeking undergraduate students beginning 
their postsecondary education in the specified cohort 
year and their completion status as of August 31, 2013 
(200 percent of normal program completion time) at the 
same institution where the students started. Four-year 
institutions used 2005 as the cohort year, while less-than- 
4-year institutions used 2009 as the cohort year. The 
response rate for this component was 100.0 percent. 

Further information on the IPEDS Graduation Rates 
and 200 Percent Graduation Rates components may be 
obtained from 

IPEDS Staff 

Administrative Data Division 

Postsecondary Branch 

National Genter for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DG 20006 

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/staff/ 

Spring (Fall Enrollment) 

This survey has been part of the HEGIS and IPEDS 
series since 1966. Response rates for this survey have been 
relatively high, generally exceeding 85 percent. Beginning 
in 2000, with web-based data collection, higher response 
rates were attained. In the spring 2014 data collection, 
where the Fall Enrollment component covered fall 2013, 
the response rate was 99.9 percent. Data collection 
procedures for the Fall Enrollment component of the 
spring 2013 data collection are presented in Enrollment 
in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2013; Financial 
Statistics, Fiscal Year 2013; and Employees in Postsecondary 
Institutions, Fall 2013 (NGES 2015-012). 

Beginning with the fall 1986 survey and the introduction 
of IPEDS (see above), the survey was redesigned. The 
survey allows (in alternating years) for the collection 
of age and residence data. Beginning in 2000, the 
survey collected instructional activity and unduplicated 
headcount data, which are needed to compute a 
standardized, full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment 
statistic for the entire academic year. As of 2007-08, 
the timeliness of the instructional activity data has been 
improved by collecting these data in the fall as part of the 
12-Month-Enrollment component instead of in the spring 
as part of the Fall Enrollment component. 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
Data Quality Study (NGES 2005-175) showed that 
public institutions made the majority of changes to 
enrollment data during the 2004 revision period. 

The majority of changes were made to unduplicated 
headcount data, with the net differences between the 
original data and the revised data at about 1 percent. 


248 The Condition of Education 2015 


Part-time students in general and enrollment in private 
not-for-profit institutions were often underestimated. 

The fewest changes by institutions were to Classification 
of Instructional Programs (CIP) code data. (The CIP 
is a taxonomic coding scheme that contains titles and 
descriptions of primarily postsecondary instructional 
programs.) 

Further information on the IPEDS Fall Enrollment 
component may be obtained from 

Bao Le 

Administrative Data Division 

Postsecondary Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

bao.le@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds 

Spring (Finance) 

This survey was part of the HEGIS series and has been 
continued under IPEDS. Substantial changes were 
made in the financial survey instruments in fiscal year 
(FY) 1976, FY 82, FY 87, FY 97, and FY 02. While 
these changes were significant, considerable effort has 
been made to present only comparable information on 
trends and to note inconsistencies. The FY 76 survey 
instrument contained numerous revisions to earlier 
survey forms, which made direct comparisons of line 
items very difficult. Beginning in FY 82, Pell Grant 
data were collected in the categories of federal restricted 
grant and contract revenues and restricted scholarship 
and fellowship expenditures. Finance tables including 
data prior to 2000 have been adjusted by subtracting 
the largely duplicative Pell Grant amounts from the later 
data to maintain comparability with pre-FY 82 data. 

The introduction of IPEDS in the FY 87 survey included 
several important changes to the survey instrument and 
data processing procedures. Beginning in FY 97, data for 
private institutions were collected using new financial 
concepts consistent with Financial Accounting Standards 
Board (FASB) reporting standards, which provide a more 
comprehensive view of college finance activities. The data 
for public institutions continued to be collected using 
the older survey form. The data for public and private 
institutions were no longer comparable and, as a result, 
no longer presented together in analyses. In FY 01, public 
institutions had the option of either continuing to report 
using Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 
standards or using the new FASB reporting standards. 
Beginning in FY 02, public institutions had three options: 
the original GASB standards, the FASB standards, or the 
new GASB Statement 35 standards (GASB35). Because 
of the complexity of the multiple forms used by public 
institutions, finance data for public institutions for some 
recent years are not available. 

Possible sources of nonsampling error in the financial 
statistics include nonresponse, imputation, and 


misclassification. The unweighted response rate has been 
about 85 to 90 percent for most of the historic years; 
however, in more recent years, response rates have been 
much higher because Title IV institutions are required to 
respond. The 2002 IPEDS data collection was a full- 
scale web-based collection, which offered features that 
improved the quality and timeliness of the data. The 
ability of IPEDS to tailor online data entry forms for each 
institution based on characteristics such as institutional 
control, level of institution, and calendar system, and the 
institutions’ ability to submit their data online, were two 
such features that improved response. 

The response rate for the FY 2013 Finance survey 
component was 99.9 percent. Data collection procedures 
for the FY 2013 survey are discussed in Enrollment in 
Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2013', Financial Statistics, 
Fiscal Year 2013', and Employees in Postsecondary 
Institutions, Fall 2013: First Look (Provisional Data) 

(NGES 2015-012). 

Two general methods of imputation were used in HEGIS. 
If prior-year data were available for a nonresponding 
institution, they were inflated using the Higher Education 
Price Index and adjusted according to changes in 
enrollments. If prior-year data were not available, current 
data were used from peer institutions selected for location 
(state or region), control, level, and enrollment size of 
institution. In most cases, estimates for nonreporting 
institutions in HEGIS were made using data from peer 
institutions. 

Beginning with FY 87, IPEDS included all postsecondary 
institutions, but maintained comparability with earlier 
surveys by allowing 2- and 4-year institutions to be 
tabulated separately. For FY 87 through FY 91, in order 
to maintain comparability with the historical time series 
of HEGIS institutions, data were combined from two of 
the three different survey forms that make up IPEDS. 

The vast majority of the data were tabulated from form 

1, which was used to collect information from public 
and private not-for-profit 2- and 4-year colleges. Form 

2, a condensed form, was used to gather data for 2-year 
for-profit institutions. Because of the differences in the 
data requested on the two forms, several assumptions were 
made about the form 2 reports so that their figures could 
be included in the degree-granting institution totals. 

In IPEDS, the form 2 institutions were not asked to 
separate appropriations from grants and contracts, nor 
were they asked to separate state from local sources of 
funding. For the form 2 institutions, all federal revenues 
were assumed to be federal grants and contracts, and all 
state and local revenues were assumed to be restricted 
state grants and contracts. All other form 2 sources of 
revenue, except for tuition and fees and sales and services 
of educational activities, were included under “other.” 
Similar adjustments were made to the expenditure 
accounts. The form 2 institutions reported instruction 
and scholarship and fellowship expenditures only. All 


Guide to Sources 249 


other educational and general expenditures were allocated 
to academic support. 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
Data Quality Study (NCES 2005-175) found that only a 
small percentage (2.9 percent, or 168) of postsecondary 
institutions either revised 2002-03 data or submitted 
data for items they previously left unreported. Though 
relatively few institutions made changes, the changes 
made were relatively large — greater than 10 percent of the 
original data. With a few exceptions, these changes, large 
as they were, did not greatly affect the aggregate totals. 

Further information on the IPEDS Finance component 
may be obtained from 

Bao Le 

Administrative Data Division 

Postsecondary Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

bao.le@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds 

Spring (Human Resources) 

The Human Resources component was part of the 
IPEDS winter data collection from data collection years 
2000-01 to 2011-12. For the 2012-13 data collection 
year, the Human Resources component was moved to the 
spring 2013 data collection, in order to give institutions 
more time to prepare their survey responses (the spring 
and winter collections begin on the same date, but the 
reporting deadline for the spring collection is several 
weeks later than the reporting deadline for the winter 
collection). 

IPEDS Collection Years 2012—13 and Later 

In 2012-13, new occupational categories replaced 
the primary function/occupational activity categories 
previously used in the IPEDS Human Resources 
component. This change was required in order to align 
the IPEDS Human Resources categories with the 2010 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. 

In tandem with the change in 2012—13 from using 
primary function/occupational activity categories to using 
the new occupational categories, the sections making 
up the IPEDS Human Resources component (which 
previously had been Employees by Assigned Position 
[EAP], Fall Staff, and Salaries) were changed to Full-Time 
Instructional Staff Full-time Noninstructional Staff 
Salaries, Part-Time Staff and New Hires. 

The webpage “Changes to the 2012-13 IPEDS Data 
Collection and Changes to Occupational Categories for 
the 2012-13 Human Resources Data Collection” ( http:// 
nces .ed. gov/ ipeds/ sur veys/datacollec tion2 012-13. asp) 
provides information on the redesigned IPEDS Human 


Resources component. “Resources for Implementing 
Changes to the IPEDS Human Resources (HR) Survey 
Component Due to Updated 2010 Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) System” ( http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ 
resource/soc.asp) is a webpage containing additional 
information, including notes comparing the new 
classifications with the old (“Comparison of New IPEDS 
Occupational Categories with Previous Categories”), a 
crosswalk from the new IPEDS occupational categories 
to the 2010 SOC occupational categories (“New IPEDS 
Occupational Categories and 2010 SOC”), answers to 
frequently asked questions, and a link to current IPEDS 
Human Resources survey screens. 

In the 2012-13 collection year, the response rate 
for the (spring 2013) Human Resources component 
was 99.9 percent. Data collection procedures for this 
component are presented in Enrollment in Postsecondary 
Institutions, Pall 2012\ Pinancial Statistics, Piscal Year 
2012; Graduation Rates, Selected Cohorts, 2004—09; 
and Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Pall 2012: 

Pirst Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2013-183). In 
the 2013-14 collection year, the response rate for 
the (spring 2014) Human Resources component was 
also 99.9 percent. Data collection procedures for this 
component are presented in Enrollment in Postsecondary 
Institutions, Pall 2013', Pinancial Statistics, Piscal Year 
2013; and Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Pall 
2013: Pirst Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2015-012). 

IPEDS Collection Years Prior to 2012-13 

In collection years before 2001-02, IPEDS conducted a 
Fall Staff survey and a Salaries survey; in the 2001-02 
collection year, the Employees by Assigned Position 
survey was added to IPEDS. In the 2005-06 collection 
year, these three surveys became sections of the IPEDS 
“Human Resources” component. 

Data gathered by the Employees by Assigned Position 
(EAP) section categorized all employees by full- or 
part-time status, faculty status, and primary function/ 
occupational activity. Institutions with M.D. or D.O. 
programs were required to report their medical school 
employees separately. A response to the EAP was required 
of all 6,858 Title IV institutions and administrative 
offices in the United States and other jurisdictions for 
winter 2008-09, and 6,845, or 99.8 percent unweighted, 
responded. Of the 6,970 Title IV institutions and 
administrative offices required to respond to the winter 
2009-10 EAP, 6,964, or 99.9 percent, responded. And of 
the 7,256 Title IV institutions and administrative offices 
required to respond to the EAP for winter 2010-11, 7,252, 
or 99.9 percent, responded. 

The main functions/occupational activities of the EAP 
section were primarily instruction, instruction combined 
with research and/or public service, primarily research, 
primarily public service, executive/administrative/ 
managerial, other professionals (support/service), graduate 


250 The Condition of Education 2015 


assistants, technical and paraprofessionals, clerical and 
secretarial, skilled crafts, and service/maintenance. 

All full-time instructional faculty classified in the EAP 
full-time non-medical school part as either (1) primarily 
instruction or (2) instruction combined with research 
and/or public service were included in the Salaries section, 
unless they were exempt. 

The Fall Staff section categorized all staff on the 
institution’s payroll as of November 1 of the collection 
year by employment status (full time or part time), 
primary function/occupational activity, gender, and race/ 
ethnicity. These data elements were collected from degree- 
granting and non-degree-granting institutions; however, 
additional data elements were collected from degree- 
granting institutions and related administrative offices 
with 15 or more full-time staff. These elements include 
faculty status, contract length/teaching period, academic 
rank, salary class intervals, and newly hired full-time 
permanent staff. 

The Fall Staff section, which was required only in 
odd-numbered reporting years, was not required during 
the 2008-09 Human Resources data collection. However, 
of the 6,858 Title IV institutions and administrative 
offices in the United States and other jurisdictions, 

3,295, or 48.0 percent unweighted, did provide data in 
the Fall Staff section that year. During the 2009-10 
Human Resources data collection, when all 6,970 Title 
IV institutions and administrative offices were required to 
respond to the Fall Staff section, 6,964, or 99.9 percent, 
did so. A response to the Fall Staff section of the 2010-11 
Human Resources collection was optional, and 3,364 
Title IV institutions and administrative offices responded 
that year (a response rate of 46.3 percent). 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Data 
Quality Study (NCES 2005-175) found that for 2003-04 
employee data items, changes were made by 1.2 percent 
(77) of the institutions that responded. All who made 
changes made changes that resulted in different employee 
counts. For both institutional and aggregate differences, 
the changes had little impact on the original employee 
count submissions. A large number of institutions 
reported different staff data to IPEDS and Thomson 
Peterson; however, the magnitude of the differences was 
small — usually no more than 17 faculty members for any 
faculty variable. 

The Salaries section collected data for full-time 
instructional faculty (except those in medical schools in 
the EAP section, described above) on the institution’s 
payroll as of November 1 of the collection year by 
contract length/teaching period, gender, and academic 
rank. The reporting of data by faculty status in the 
Salaries section was required from 4-year degree-granting 
institutions and above only. Salary outlays and fringe 
benefits were also collected for full-time instructional staff 
on 9/10- and 11/12-month contracts/teaching periods. 


This section was applicable to degree-granting institutions 
unless exempt. 

Between 1966-67 and 1985-86, this survey differed 
from other HEGIS surveys in that imputations were not 
made for nonrespondents. Thus, there is some possibility 
that the salary averages presented in this report may 
differ from the results of a complete enumeration of all 
colleges and universities. Beginning with the surveys for 
1987-88, the IPEDS data tabulation procedures included 
imputations for survey nonrespondents. The unweighted 
response rate for the 2008-09 Salaries survey section was 
99.9 percent. The response rate for the 2009-10 Salaries 
section was 100.0 percent (4,453 of the 4,455 required 
institutions responded), and the response rate for 2010-11 
was 99.9 percent (4,561 of the 4,565 required institutions 
responded). Imputation methods for the 2010-11 Salaries 
survey section are discussed in Employees in Postsecondary 
Institutions, Pall 2010, and Salaries of Pull-Time 
Instructional Staff, 2010— 11 (NCES 2012-276). 

Although data from this survey are not subject to 
sampling error, sources of nonsampling error may include 
computational errors and misclassification in reporting 
and processing. The electronic reporting system does 
allow corrections to prior-year reported or missing data, 
and this should help with these problems. Also, NCES 
reviews individual institutions’ data for internal and 
longitudinal consistency and contacts institutions to 
check inconsistent data. 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 
Data Quality Study (NCES 2005-175) found that only 
1.3 percent of the responding Title IV institutions 
in 2003-04 made changes to their salaries data. The 
differences between the imputed data and the revised 
data were small and found to have little impact on the 
published data. 

Further information on the Human Resources component 
may be obtained from 

IPEDS Staff 

Administrative Data Division 
Postsecondary Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006 

http://nces.ed. gov/ncestaff/SurvDetl.asp?surveyID=010 

National Assessment of Educational 
Progress 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 
is a series of cross-sectional studies initially implemented 
in 1969 to assess the educational achievement of U.S. 
students and monitor changes in those achievements. 

In the main national NAEP, a nationally representative 
sample of students is assessed at grades 4, 8, and 12 in 
various academic subjects. 


Guide to Sources 251 


The assessments are based on frameworks developed by 
the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). 
Assessment items include both multiple-choice and 
constructed-response (requiring written answers) items. 
Results are reported in two ways: by average score and 
by achievement level. Average scores are reported for the 
nation, for participating states and jurisdictions, and for 
subgroups of the population. Percentages of students 
performing at or above three achievement levels {Basic, 
Proficient, and Advanced) are also reported for these 
groups. 

From 1990 until 2001, main NAEP was conducted for 
states and other jurisdictions that chose to participate. In 
2002, under the provisions of the No Child Left Behind 
Act of 2001, all states began to participate in main NAEP 
and an aggregate of all state samples replaced the separate 
national sample. 

Results are available for the mathematics assessments 
administered in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 
2013; results for the mathematics assessment administered 
in 2015 will be released in late 2015. In 2005, NAGB 
called for the development of a new mathematics 
framework. The revisions made to the mathematics 
framework for the 2005 assessment were intended to 
reflect recent curricular emphases and better assess the 
specific objectives for students at each grade level. 

The revised mathematics framework focuses on two 
dimensions: mathematical content and cognitive demand. 
By considering these two dimensions for each item in the 
assessment, the framework ensures that NAEP assesses an 
appropriate balance of content, as well as a variety of ways 
of knowing and doing mathematics. 

For grades 4 and 8, comparisons over time can be 
made among the assessments prior to and after the 
implementation of the 2005 framework. The changes 
to the grade 12 assessment were too drastic to allow 
the results to be directly compared with previous years. 

The changes to the grade 12 assessment included 
adding more questions on algebra, data analysis, and 
probability to reflect changes in high school mathematics 
standards and coursework, as well as the merging of the 
measurement and geometry content areas. The reporting 
scale for grade 12 mathematics was changed from 0-500 
to 0-300. For more information regarding the 2005 
mathematics framework revisions, see http://nces.ed.gov/ 
nationsreportcard/mathematics/frameworkcomparison.asp . 

Results are available for the reading assessments 
administered in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 
2011, and 2013; results for the reading assessment 
administered in 2015 will be released in late 2015. In 
2009, a new framework was developed for the 4th-, 8th-, 
and 12th-grade NAEP reading assessments. 

Both a content alignment study and a reading trend or 
bridge study were conducted to determine if the “new” 


assessment was comparable to the “old” assessment. 
Overall, the results of the special analyses suggested that 
the old and new assessments were similar in terms of 
their item and scale characteristics and the results they 
produced for important demographic groups of students. 
Thus, it was determined that the results of the 2009 
reading assessment could still be compared to those from 
earlier assessment years, thereby maintaining the trend 
lines first established in 1992. For more information 
regarding the 2009 reading framework revisions, 
see http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/ 
whatmeasure.asp . 

In spring 2013, NAEP released results from the NAEP 
2012 economics assessment in The Nation’s Report Card: 
Economics 2012 (NCES 2013-453). First administered 
in 2006, the NAEP economics assessment measures 
12th-graders’ understanding of a wide range of topics 
in three main content areas: market economy, national 
economy, and international economy. The 2012 
assessment is based on a nationally representative sample 
of nearly 11,000 12th-graders. Comparing results from 

2012 with results from 2006 can advance the inquiry of 
whether our nation’s high school seniors are becoming 
more literate in economics. 

In the report The Nation’s Report Card: A First Look — 

2013 Mathematics and Reading (NCES 2014-451), NAEP 
released the results of the 2013 mathematics and reading 
assessments. Results can also be accessed using the 
interactive graphics and downloadable data available at 
the new online Nation’s Report Card website 
( http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading math 2013/#/ ). 

In addition to conducting the main assessments, NAEP 
also conducts the long-term trend assessments and trial 
urban district assessments. Long-term trend assessments 
provide an opportunity to observe educational progress in 
reading and mathematics of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds since 
the early 1970s. The long-term trend reading assessment 
measures students’ reading comprehension skills using 
an array of passages that vary by text types and length. 
The assessment was designed to measure students’ ability 
to locate specific information in the text provided; make 
inferences across a passage to provide an explanation; and 
identify the main idea in the text. 

The NAEP long-term trend assessment in mathematics 
measures knowledge of mathematical facts; ability to 
carry out computations using paper and pencil; knowledge 
of basic formulas, such as those applied in geometric 
settings; and ability to apply mathematics to skills of daily 
life, such as those involving time and money. 

The Nation’s Report Card: Trends in Academic Progress 
2012 (NCES 2013-456) provides the results of 12 long- 
term trend reading assessments dating back to 1971 and 
1 1 long-term trend mathematics assessments dating back 
to 1973. 


252 The Condition of Education 2015 


The NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) 
focuses attention on urban education and measures 
educational progress within participating large urban 
districts. TUDA mathematics and reading assessments are 
based on the same mathematics and reading assessments 
used to report national and state results. TUDA reading 
results were first reported for 6 urban districts in 2002, 
and TUDA mathematics results were first reported for 
10 urban districts in 2003. 

The Nation’s Report Card: A First Look — 2013 
Mathematics and Reading Trial Urban District Assessment 
(NCES 2014-466) provides the results of the 2013 
mathematics and reading TUDA, which measured the 
reading and mathematics progress of 4th- and 8th-graders 
from 21 urban school districts. Results from the 2013 
mathematics and reading TUDA can also be accessed 
using the interactive graphics and downloadable 
data available at the online TUDA website ( http:// 
nationsreportcard.gov/reading math tuda 2013/#/ ). 

Further information on NAEP may be obtained from 

Arnold Goldstein 

Assessments Division 

Reporting and Dissemination Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

arnold.goldstein@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard 

National Household Education Surveys 
Program 

The National Household Education Surveys Program 
(NHES) is a data collection system that is designed to 
address a wide range of education-related issues. Surveys 
have been conducted in 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999, 
2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2012. NHES targets specific 
populations for detailed data collection. It is intended to 
provide more detailed data on the topics and populations 
of interest than are collected through supplements to 
other household surveys. 

The topics addressed by NHES:1991 were early childhood 
education and adult education. About 60,000 households 
were screened for NHES:1991. In the Early Childhood 
Education Survey, about 14,000 parents/guardians 
of 3- to 8-year-olds completed interviews about their 
children’s early educational experiences. Included in 
this component were participation in nonparental care/ 
education; care arrangements and school; and family, 
household, and child characteristics. In the NHES: 1991 
Adult Education Survey, about 9,800 people 16 years 
of age and older, identified as having participated in an 
adult education activity in the previous 12 months, were 
questioned about their activities. Data were collected 
on programs and up to four courses, including the 


subject matter, duration, sponsorship, purpose, and cost. 
Information on the household and the adult’s background 
and current employment was also collected. 

In NHES:1993, nearly 64,000 households were screened. 
Approximately 11,000 parents of 3- to 7-year-olds 
completed interviews for the School Readiness Survey. 
Topics included the developmental characteristics of 
preschoolers; school adjustment and teacher feedback to 
parents for kindergartners and primary students; center- 
based program participation; early school experiences; 
home activities with family members; and health status. 

In the School Safety and Discipline Survey, about 
12,700 parents of children in grades 3 to 12 and about 
6,500 youth in grades 6 to 12 were interviewed about 
their school experiences. Topics included the school 
learning environment, discipline policy, safety at school, 
victimization, the availability and use of alcohol/drugs, 
and alcohol/drug education. Peer norms for behavior in 
school and substance use were also included in this topical 
component. Extensive family and household background 
information was collected, as well as characteristics of the 
school attended by the child. 

In NHES:1995, the Early Childhood Program 
Participation Survey and the Adult Education Survey were 
similar to those fielded in 1991. In the Early Childhood 
component, about 14,000 parents of children from birth 
to third grade were interviewed out of 16,000 sampled, 
for a completion rate of 90.4 percent. In the Adult 
Education Survey, about 24,000 adults were sampled and 
82.3 percent (20,000) completed the interview. 

NHES: 1996 covered parent and family involvement in 
education and civic involvement. Data on homeschooling 
and school choice also were collected. The 1996 survey 
screened about 56,000 households. For the Parent and 
Family Involvement in Education Survey, nearly 21,000 
parents of children in grades 3 to 12 were interviewed. 

For the Civic Involvement Survey, about 8,000 youth 
in grades 6 to 12, about 9,000 parents, and about 2,000 
adults were interviewed. The 1996 survey also addressed 
public library use. Adults in almost 55,000 households 
were interviewed to support state-level estimates of 
household public library use. 

NHES: 1999 collected end-of-decade estimates of key 
indicators from the surveys conducted throughout the 
1990s. Approximately 60,000 households were screened 
for a total of about 31,000 interviews with parents of 
children from birth through grade 12 (including about 
6,900 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers) and adults 
age 16 or older not enrolled in grade 12 or below. 

Key indicators included participation of children in 
nonparental care and early childhood programs, school 
experiences, parent/family involvement in education at 
home and at school, youth community service activities, 
plans for future education, and adult participation in 
educational activities and community service. 


Guide to Sources 253 


NHES:2001 included two surveys that were largely 
repeats of similar surveys included in earlier NHES 
collections. The Early Childhood Program Participation 
Survey was similar in content to the Early Childhood 
Program Participation Survey fielded as part of 
NHES: 1995, and the Adult Education and Lifelong 
Learning Survey was similar in content to the Adult 
Education Survey of NHES: 1995. The Before- and 
After-School Programs and Activities Survey, while 
containing items fielded in earlier NHES collections, had 
a number of new items that collected information about 
what school-age children were doing during the time they 
spent in child care or in other activities, what parents were 
looking for in care arrangements and activities, and parent 
evaluations of care arrangements and activities. Parents 
of approximately 6,700 children from birth through 
age 6 who were not yet in kindergarten completed Early 
Childhood Program Participation Survey interviews. 
Nearly 10,900 adults completed Adult Education and 
Lifelong Learning Survey interviews, and parents of 
nearly 9,600 children in kindergarten through grade 
8 completed Before- and After-School Programs and 
Activities Survey interviews. 

NHES:2003 included two surveys: the Parent and 
Family Involvement in Education Survey and the Adult 
Education for Work-Related Reasons Survey (the first 
administration). Whereas previous adult education 
surveys were more general in scope, this survey had a 
narrower focus on occupation-related adult education 
programs. It collected in-depth information about 
training and education in which adults participated 
specifically for work-related reasons, either to prepare for 
work or a career or to maintain or improve work-related 
skills and knowledge they already had. The Parent and 
Family Involvement Survey expanded on the first survey 
fielded on this topic in 1996. In 2003, screeners were 
completed with 32,050 households. About 12,700 of the 
16,000 sampled adults completed the Adult Education 
for Work-Related Reasons Survey, for a weighted response 
rate of 76 percent. For the Parent and Family Involvement 
in Education Survey, interviews were completed by the 
parents of about 12,400 of the 14,900 sampled children in 
kindergarten through grade 12, yielding a weighted unit 
response rate of 83 percent. 

NHES:2005 included surveys that covered adult 
education, early childhood program participation, and 
after-school programs and activities. Data were collected 
from about 8,900 adults for the Adult Education Survey, 
from parents of about 7,200 children for the Early 
Childhood Program Participation Survey, and from 
parents of nearly 11,700 children for the After-School 
Programs and Activities Survey. These surveys were 
substantially similar to the surveys conducted in 2001, 
with the exceptions that the Adult Education Survey 
addressed a new topic — informal learning activities for 
personal interest — and the Early Childhood Program 
Participation Survey and After-School Programs and 


Activities Survey did not collect information about before- 
school care for school-age children. 

NHES:2007 fielded the Parent and Family Involvement 
in Education Survey and the School Readiness Survey. 
These surveys were similar in design and content to 
surveys included in the 2003 and 1993 collections, 
respectively. New features added to the Parent and Family 
Involvement Survey were questions about supplemental 
education services provided by schools and school districts 
(including use of and satisfaction with such services), 
as well as questions that would efficiently identify the 
school attended by the sampled students. New features 
added to the School Readiness Survey were questions 
that collected details about TV programs watched by the 
sampled children. For the Parent and Family Involvement 
Survey, interviews were completed with parents of 10,680 
sampled children in kindergarten through grade 12, 
including 10,370 students enrolled in public or private 
schools and 310 homeschooled children. For the School 
Readiness Survey, interviews were completed with 
parents of 2,630 sampled children ages 3 to 6 and not 
yet in kindergarten. Parents who were interviewed about 
children in kindergarten through second grade for the 
Parent and Family Involvement Survey were also asked 
some questions about these children’s school readiness. 

The 2007 and earlier administrations of NHES used 
a random-digit-dial sample of landline phones and 
computer-assisted telephone interviewing to conduct 
interviews. However, due to declining response rates for 
all telephone surveys and the increase in households that 
only or mostly use a cell phone instead of a landline, 
the data collection method was changed to an address- 
based sample survey for NHES:2012. Because of this 
change in survey mode, readers should use caution when 
comparing NHES:2012 estimates to those of prior NHES 
administrations. 

NHES:2012 fielded the Parent and Family Involvement 
in Education Survey and the Early Childhood Program 
Participation Survey. The Parent and Family Involvement 
in Education Survey gathered data on students who 
were enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12 or 
who were homeschooled at equivalent grade levels. 

Survey questions that pertained to students enrolled in 
kindergarten through grade 12 requested information on 
various aspects of parent involvement in education (such 
as help with homework, family activities, and parent 
involvement at school) and survey questions pertaining 
to homeschooled students requested information on the 
student’s homeschooling experiences, the sources of the 
curriculum, and the reasons for homeschooling. 

The 2012 Parent and Family Involvement in Education 
Survey questionnaires were completed for 17,563 
(397 homeschooled and 17,166 enrolled) children, for a 
weighted unit response rate of 78.4 percent. The overall 
estimated unit response rate (the product of the screener 
unit response rate of 73.8 percent and the Parent and 


254 The Condition of Education 2015 


Family Involvement in Education Survey unit response 
rate) was 57.8 percent. 

The 2012 Early Childhood Program Participation 
Survey collected data on the early care and education 
arrangements and early learning of children from birth 
through the age of 5 who were not yet enrolled in 
kindergarten. Questionnaires were completed for 7,893 
children, for a weighted unit response rate of 78.7 percent. 
The overall estimated weighted unit response rate 
(the product of the screener weighted unit response 
rate of 73.8 percent and the Early Childhood Program 
Participation Survey unit weighted response rate) was 
58.1 percent. 

Data for the 2012 NHES Parent and Family Involvement 
in Education Survey are available in the First Look 
report. Parent and Family Involvement in Education, 

From the National Flousehold Education Surveys Program 
of 2012 (NCES 2013-028). Data for the 2012 NHES 
Early Childhood Program Participation Survey are 
available in the First Look report Early Childhood Program 
Participation, From the National Flousehold Education 
Surveys Program of 2012 (NCES 2013-029). 

Further information on NHES may be obtained from 

Andrew Zukerberg 

Gail Mulligan 

Sample Surveys Division 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

andrew.zukerberg(g)ed.gov 

gail.mulligantaed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/nhes 

National Postsecondary Student Aid 
Study 

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 
(NPSAS) is a comprehensive nationwide study of how 
students and their families pay for postsecondary 
education. Data gathered from the study are used to 
help guide future federal student financial aid policy. 

The study covers nationally representative samples of 
undergraduates, graduates, and first-professional students 
in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
Rico, including students attending less-than-2-year 
institutions, community colleges, 4-year colleges, and 
universities. Participants include students who do not 
receive aid and those who do receive financial aid. Since 
NPSAS identifies nationally representative samples of 
student subpopulations of interest to policymakers and 
obtains baseline data for longitudinal study of these 
subpopulations, data from the study provide the base-year 
sample for the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) 
longitudinal study and the Baccalaureate and Beyond 
(B&B) longitudinal study. 


Originally, NPSAS was conducted every 3 years. 
Beginning with the 1999-2000 study (NPSAS:2000), 
NPSAS has been conducted every 4 years. NPSAS:08 
included a new set of instrument items to obtain baseline 
measures of the awareness of two new federal grants 
introduced in 2006: the Academic Competitiveness Grant 
(ACG) and the National Science and Mathematics Access 
to Retain Talent (SMART) grant. 

The first NPSAS (NPSAS:87) was conducted during the 
1986-87 school year. Data were gathered from about 

I, 100 colleges, universities, and other postsecondary 
institutions; 60,000 students; and 14,000 parents. These 
data provided information on the cost of postsecondary 
education, the distribution of financial aid, and the 
characteristics of both aided and nonaided students and 
their families. 

For NPSAS:93, information on 77,000 undergraduates 
and graduate students enrolled during the school year was 
collected at 1,000 postsecondary institutions. The sample 
included students who were enrolled at any time between 
July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1993. About 66,000 students 
and a subsample of their parents were interviewed by 
telephone. NPSAS:96 contained information on more 
than 48,000 undergraduate and graduate students 
from about 1,000 postsecondary institutions who were 
enrolled at any time during the 1995-96 school year. 
NPSAS:2000 included nearly 62,000 students (50,000 
undergraduates and almost 12,000 graduate students) 
from 1,000 postsecondary institutions. NPSAS:04 
collected data on about 80,000 undergraduates and 

II, 000 graduate students from 1,400 postsecondary 
institutions. For NPSAS:08, about 114,000 undergraduate 
students and 14,000 graduate students who were enrolled 
in postsecondary education during the 2007-08 school 
year were selected from more than 1,730 postsecondary 
institutions. 

NPSAS: 12 sampled about 95,000 undergraduates and 
16,000 graduate students from approximately 1,500 
postsecondary institutions. Public access to the data is 
available online through PowerStats ( http://nces.ed.gov/ 
datalab/) . The next cycle of NPSAS is scheduled for the 
2015-16 school year. 

Further information on NPSAS may be obtained from 

Aurora DAmico 

Tracy Hunt-White 

Sample Surveys Division 

Longitudinal Surveys Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

aurora.damico@ed.gov 

tracy.hunt-white@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/npsas 


Guide to Sources 255 


Principal Follow-up Survey 

The Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS), first conducted 
in school year 2008—09, is a component of the 2011—12 
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). The 2012-13 PFS 
was administered in order to provide attrition rates for 
principals in K-12 public and private schools. The goal 
was to assess how many principals in the 2011-12 school 
year still worked as a principal in the same school in the 
2012-13 school year, how many had moved to become 
a principal in another school, and how many no longer 
worked as a principal. The PFS sample included all 
schools whose principals had completed SASS principal 
questionnaires. Schools that had returned a completed 
2011-12 SASS principal questionnaire were mailed the 
PFS form in March 2013. 

Further information on the PFS may be obtained from 

Chelsea Owens 
Sample Surveys Division 
Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
chelsea.owens@ed.gov 
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/ 

Private School Universe Survey 

The purposes of the Private School Universe Survey 
(PSS) data collection activities are (1) to build an accurate 
and complete list of private schools to serve as a sampling 
frame for NCES sample surveys of private schools and 
(2) to report data on the total number of private schools, 
teachers, and students in the survey universe. Begun in 
1989 under the U.S. Census Bureau, the PSS has been 
conducted every 2 years, and data for the 1989-90, 
1991-92, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1997-98, 1999-2000, 
2001-02, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2007-08, and 2009-10 
school years have been released. A First Look report on 
the 2011-12 PSS data. Characteristics of Private Schools 
in the United States: Results From the 2011—12 Private 
School Universe Survey (NCES 2013-316) was published 
in July 2013. 

The PSS produces data similar to that of the CCD 
for public schools, and can be used for public-private 
comparisons. The data are useful for a variety of policy- 
and research-relevant issues, such as the growth of 
religiously affiliated schools, the number of private high 
school graduates, the length of the school year for various 
private schools, and the number of private school students 
and teachers. 

The target population for this universe survey is all 
private schools in the United States that meet the PSS 
criteria of a private school (i.e., the private school is an 
institution that provides instruction for any of grades K 
through 12, has one or more teachers to give instruction. 


is not administered by a public agency, and is not operated 
in a private home). The survey universe is composed of 
schools identified from a variety of sources. The main 
source is a list frame initially developed for the 1989-90 
PSS. The list is updated regularly by matching it with lists 
provided by nationwide private school associations, state 
departments of education, and other national guides and 
sources that list private schools. The other source is an 
area frame search in approximately 124 geographic areas, 
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Of the 40,302 schools included in the 2009-10 sample, 
10,229 were found ineligible for the survey. Those not 
responding numbered 1,856, and those responding 
numbered 28,217. The unweighted response rate for the 
2009-10 PSS survey was 93.8 percent. 

Of the 39,325 schools included in the 2011-12 sample, 
10,030 cases were considered as out-of-scope (not eligible 
for the PSS). A total of 26,983 private schools completed 
a PSS interview (15.8 percent completed online), while 
2,312 schools refused to participate, resulting in an 
unweighted response rate of 92.1 percent. 

Further information on the PSS may be obtained from 

Steve Broughman 
Sample Surveys Division 
Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
stephen.broughman@ed.gov 
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss 

Projections of Education Statistics 

Since 1964, NCES has published projections of key 
statistics for elementary and secondary schools and 
institutions of higher education. The latest report is 
titled Projections of Education Statistics to 2022 (NCES 
2014-051). The Projections of Education Statistics series 
uses projection models for elementary and secondary 
enrollment, high school graduates, elementary and 
secondary teachers, expenditures for public elementary 
and secondary education, enrollment in postsecondary 
degree-granting institutions, and postsecondary degrees 
conferred to develop national and state projections. These 
models are described more fully in the report’s appendix 
on projection methodology. 

Differences between the reported and projected values 
are, of course, almost inevitable. An evaluation of 
past projections revealed that, at the elementary and 
secondary level, projections of enrollments have been 
quite accurate: mean absolute percentage differences for 
enrollment ranged from 0.3 to 1.3 percent for projections 
from 1 to 5 years in the future, while those for teachers 
were less than 3 percent. At the higher education level, 
projections of enrollment have been fairly accurate: mean 


256 The Condition of Education 2015 


absolute percentage differences were 5 percent or less for 
projections from 1 to 5 years into the future. 

Further information on Projections of Education Statistics 
may be obtained from 

William Hussar 

Annual Reports and Information 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
william.hussartaed.gov 
http://nces.ed.gov/annuals 

Schools and Staffing Survey 

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is a set of 
related questionnaires that collect descriptive data 
on the context of public and private elementary and 
secondary education. Data reported by districts, schools, 
principals, and teachers provide a variety of statistics on 
the condition of education in the United States that may 
be used by policymakers and the general public. The 
SASS system covers a wide range of topics, including 
teacher demand, teacher and principal characteristics, 
teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of school climate 
and problems in their schools, teacher and principal 
compensation, district hiring and retention practices, 
general conditions in schools, and basic characteristics of 
the student population. 

SASS data are collected through a mail questionnaire 
with telephone and in-person field follow-up. SASS has 
been conducted by the Census Bureau for NCES since the 
first administration of the survey, which was conducted 
during the 1987-88 school year. Subsequent SASS 
administrations were conducted in 1990-91, 1993-94, 
1999-2000, 2003-04, 2007-08, and 2011-12. 

SASS is designed to produce national, regional, and state 
estimates for public elementary and secondary schools, 
school districts, principals, teachers, and school library 
media centers and national and regional estimates for 
public charter schools, as well as principals, teachers, 
and school library media centers within these schools. 

For private schools, the sample supports national, 
regional, and affiliation estimates for schools, principals, 
and teachers. 

From its inception, SASS has had four core components: 
school questionnaires, teacher questionnaires, principal 
questionnaires, and school district (prior to 1999-2000, 
“teacher demand and shortage”) questionnaires. A fifth 
component, school library media center questionnaires, 
was introduced in the 1993-94 administration and 
has been included in every subsequent administration 
of SASS. School library data were also collected in the 
1990-91 administration of the survey through the school 
and principal questionnaires. 


School questionnaires used in SASS include the 
Public and Private School Questionnaires; teacher 
questionnaires include the Public and Private School 
Teacher Questionnaires; principal questionnaires include 
the Public and Private School Principal (or School 
Administrator) Questionnaires; and school district 
questionnaires include the School District (or Teacher 
Demand and Shortage) Questionnaires. 

Although the four core questionnaires and the school 
library media questionnaires have remained relatively 
stable over the various administrations of SASS, the 
survey has changed to accommodate emerging issues 
in elementary and secondary education. Some items 
have been added, some have been deleted, and some 
questionnaire items have been reworded. 

During the 1990-91 SASS cycle, NCES worked with 
the Office of Indian Education to add an Indian School 
Questionnaire to SASS, and it remained a part of SASS 
through 2007-08. The Indian School Questionnaire 
explores the same school-level issues that the Public 
and Private School Questionnaires explore, allowing 
comparisons among the three types of schools. The 
1990-91, 1993-94, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08 
administrations of SASS obtained data on Bureau of 
Indian Education (BIE) schools (schools funded or 
operated by the BIE), but the 2011-12 administration 
did not obtain BIE data. SASS estimates for all survey 
years presented in this report exclude BIE schools, and as 
a result, estimates in this report may differ from those in 
previously published reports. 

School library media center questionnaires were 
administered in public, private, and BIE schools as part 
of the 1993-1994 and 1999-2000 SASS. During the 
2003-04 administration of SASS, only library media 
centers in public schools were surveyed, and in 2007-08 
only library media centers in public schools and BIE and 
BIE-funded schools were surveyed. The 2011-12 survey 
collected data only on school library media centers in 
traditional public schools and in public charter schools. 
School library questions focused on facilities, services 
and policies, staffing, technology, information literacy, 
collections and expenditures, and media equipment. 

New or revised topics included access to online licensed 
databases, resource availability, and additional elements 
on information literacy. The Student Records and 
Library Media Specialist/Librarian Questionnaires were 
administered only in 1993-94. 

As part of the 1999-2000 SASS, the Charter School 
Questionnaire was sent to the universe of charter 
schools in operation in 1998-99. In 2003-04 and 
in subsequent administrations of SASS, there was no 
separate questionnaire for charter schools — charter 
schools were included in the public school sample instead. 
Another change in the 2003-04 administration of SASS 
was a revised data collection procedure using a primary 


Guide to Sources 257 


in-person contact within the school intended to reduce 
the field follow-up phase. 

The SASS teacher surveys collect information on the 
characteristics of teachers, such as their age, race/ethnicity, 
years of teaching experience, average number of hours per 
week spent on teaching activities, base salary, average class 
size, and highest degree earned. These teacher-reported 
data may be combined with related information on their 
school’s characteristics, such as school type (e.g., public 
traditional, public charter. Catholic, private other 
religious, and private nonsectarian), community type, 
and school enrollment size. The teacher questionnaires 
also ask for information on teacher opinions regarding 
the school and teaching environment. In 1993-94, about 

53.000 public school teachers and 10,400 private school 
teachers were sampled. In 1999-2000, about 56,300 
public school teachers, 4,400 public charter school 
teachers, and 10,800 private school teachers were sampled. 
In 2003-04, about 52,500 public school teachers and 

10.000 private school teachers were sampled. In 2007-08, 
about 48,400 public school teachers and 8,200 private 
school teachers were sampled. In 2011-12, about 51,100 
public school teachers and 7,100 private school teachers 
were sampled. Weighted overall response rates in 
2011-12 were 61.8 percent for public school teachers and 

50.1 percent for private school teachers. 

The SASS principal surveys focus on such topics as 
age, race/ethnicity, sex, average annual salary, years of 
experience, highest degree attained, perceived influence 
on decisions made at the school, and hours spent per 
week on all school activities. These data on principals 
can be placed in the context of other SASS data, such as 
the type of the principal’s school (e.g., public traditional, 
public charter. Catholic, other religious, or nonsectarian), 
enrollment, and percentage of students eligible for free 
or reduced price lunch. In 2003-04, about 10,200 
public school principals were sampled, and in 2007-08, 
about 9,800 public school principals were sampled. In 
2011-12, about 11,000 public school principals and 
3,000 private school principals were sampled. Weighted 
response rates in 2011—12 for public school principals 
and private school principals were 72.7 percent and 
64.7 percent, respectively. 

The SASS 2011-12 sample of schools was confined to the 
50 states and the District of Columbia and excludes the 
other jurisdictions, the Department of Defense overseas 
schools, the BIT schools, and schools that do not offer 
teacher-provided classroom instruction in grades 1-12 
or the ungraded equivalent. The SASS 2011-12 sample 
included 10,250 traditional public schools, 750 public 
charter schools, and 3,000 private schools. 

The public school sample for the 2011-12 SASS was 
based on an adjusted public school universe file from the 
2009-10 Common Core of Data (CCD), a database of all 
the nation’s public school districts and public schools. The 
private school sample for the 2011-12 SASS was selected 
from the 2009-10 Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 


as updated for the 2011-12 PSS. This update collected 
membership lists from private school associations and 
religious denominations, as well as private school lists 
from state education departments. The 2011-12 SASS 
private school frame was further augmented by the 
inclusion of additional schools that were identified 
through the 2009-10 PSS area frame data collection. 

Further information on SASS may be obtained from 

Kathryn Chandler 
Sample Surveys Division 
Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
kathryn.chandler@ed.gov 
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass 

The Teacher Follow-up Survey 

The Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) is a follow-up 
survey of selected elementary and secondary school 
teachers who participate in the NCES Schools and 
Staffing Survey (SASS). Its purpose is to determine how 
many teachers remain at the same school, move to another 
school, or leave the profession in the year following a 
SASS administration. It is administered to elementary 
and secondary teachers in the 50 states and the District 
of Columbia. The TFS uses two questionnaires, one 
for teachers who left teaching since the previous SASS 
administration and another for those who are still 
teaching either in the same school as last year or in a 
different school. The objective of the TFS is to focus 
on the characteristics of each group in order to answer 
questions about teacher mobility and attrition. 

The 2008—09 TFS is different from any previous TFS 
administration in that it also serves as the second wave of 
a longitudinal study of first-year teachers. Because of this, 
the 2008-09 TFS consists of four questionnaires. Two are 
for respondents who were first-year public school teachers 
in the 2007-08 SASS and two are for the remainder of 
the sample. 

The 2012-13 TFS sample was made up of teachers who 
had taken the 2011-12 SASS survey. The 2012-13 TFS 
sample contained about 5,800 public school teachers 
and 1,200 private school teachers. The weighted overall 
response rate using the initial basic weight for private 
school teachers was notably low (39.7 percent), resulting 
in a decision to exclude private school teachers from 
the 2012-13 TFS data files. The weighted overall 
response rate for public school teachers was 49.9 percent 
(50.3 percent for current and 45.6 percent for former 
teachers). Further information about the 2012-13 
TFS, including the analysis of unit nonresponse bias, is 
available in the First Look report Teacher Attrition and 
Mobility: Results From the 2012—13 Teacher Follow-up 
Survey (NCES 2014-077). 


258 The Condition of Education 2015 


Further information on the TFS may be obtained from 

Chelsea Owens 
Sample Surveys Division 
Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
chelsea.owens@ed.gov 
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/ 

Other Department of Education 
Agencies 

Office of Special Education Programs 

Annual Report to Congress on the 
Implementation of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA) is a law ensuring services to children with 
disabilities throughout the nation. IDEA governs how 
states and public agencies provide early intervention, 
special education, and related services to more than 
6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children, and youth 
with disabilities. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 
formerly the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), 
requires the Secretary of Education to transmit to 
Congress annually a report describing the progress made 
in serving the nation’s children with disabilities. This 
annual report contains information on children served 
by public schools under the provisions of Part B of the 
IDEA and on children served in state-operated programs 
for persons with disabilities under Chapter I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

Statistics on children receiving special education and 
related services in various settings and school personnel 
providing such services are reported in an annual 
submission of data to the Office of Special Education 
Programs (OSEP) by the 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, the BIE schools, Puerto Rico, American 
Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, 
and the Marshall Islands. The child count information 
is based on the number of children with disabilities 
receiving special education and related services on 
December 1 of each year. Count information is available 
from http://www.ideadata.org . 

Since all participants in programs for persons with 
disabilities are reported to OSEP, the data are not subject 
to sampling error. However, nonsampling error can 
arise from a variety of sources. Some states only produce 
counts of students receiving special education services by 
disability category because Part B of the EHA requires it. 


In those states that typically produce counts of students 
receiving special education services by disability category 
without regard to EHA requirements, definitions and 
labeling practices vary. 

Further information on this annual report to Congress 
may be obtained from 

Office of Special Education Programs 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

U.S. Department of Education 

400 Maryland Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20202-7100 

http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.html 

http://idea.ed.gov/ 

http://www.ideadata.org 

Other Governmental Agencies and 
Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

National Crime Victimization Survey 
(NCVS) 

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 
administered for the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 
(BJS) by the U.S. Census Bureau, is the nation’s primary 
source of information on crime and the victims of crime. 
Initiated in 1972 and redesigned in 1992, the NCVS 
collects detailed information on the frequency and nature 
of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated 
and simple assault, theft, household burglary, and motor 
vehicle theft experienced by Americans and American 
households each year. The survey measures both crimes 
reported to police and crimes not reported to the police. 

NCVS estimates presented may differ from those 
in previous published reports. This is because a 
small number of victimizations, referred to as series 
victimizations, are included using a new counting 
strategy. High-frequency repeat victimizations, or series 
victimizations, are six or more similar but separate 
victimizations that occur with such frequency that 
the victim is unable to recall each individual event or 
describe each event in detail. As part of ongoing research 
efforts associated with the redesign of the NCVS, BJS 
investigated ways to include high-frequency repeat 
victimizations, or series victimizations, in estimates of 
criminal victimization. Including series victimizations 
results in more accurate estimates of victimization. 

BJS has decided to include series victimizations using 
the victim’s estimates of the number of times the 
victimizations occurred over the past 6 months, capping 
the number of victimizations within each series at 
a maximum of 10. This strategy for counting series 
victimizations balances the desire to estimate national 
rates and account for the experiences of persons who 
have been subjected to repeat victimizations against the 


Guide to Sources 259 


desire to minimize the estimation errors that can occur 
when repeat victimizations are reported. Including series 
victimizations in national rates results in rather large 
increases in the level of violent victimization; however, 
trends in violence are generally similar regardless of 
whether series victimizations are included. For more 
information on the new counting strategy and supporting 
research, see Methods for Counting High-Frequency Repeat 
Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey 
at http://bis.oip.usdoi.gov/content/pub/pdf/mchfrv.pdf . 

Readers should note that in 2003, in accordance with 
changes to the Office of Management and Budget’s 
standards for the classification of federal data on race 
and ethnicity, the NCVS item on race/ethnicity was 
modified. A question on Hispanic origin is now followed 
by a new question on race. The new question about 
race allows the respondent to choose more than one 
race and delineates Asian as a separate category from 
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. An analysis 
conducted by the Demographic Surveys Division at the 
U.S. Census Bureau showed that the new race question 
had very little impact on the aggregate racial distribution 
of the NCVS respondents, with one exception: There 
was a 1.6 percentage point decrease in the percentage of 
respondents who reported themselves as White. Due to 
changes in race/ethnicity categories, comparisons of race/ 
ethnicity across years should be made with caution. 

There were changes in the sample design and survey 
methodology in the 2006 NCVS that may have 
affected survey estimates. Caution should be used when 
comparing the 2006 estimates to estimates of other years. 
Data from 2007 onward are comparable to earlier years. 
Analyses of the 2007 estimates indicate that the program 
changes made in 2006 had relatively small effects on 
NCVS estimates. For more information on the 2006 
NCVS data, see Criminal Victimization, 2006, at 
http://bis.oip.usdoi.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvQ6.pdf the 
technical notes at http://bis.oip.usdoi.gov/content/pub/ 
pdf/cv06tn.pdf and Criminal Victimization, 2007, at 
http://bis.oip.usdoi.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvQ7.pdf 

The number of NCVS-eligible households in the sample 
in 2013 was about 107,000. Households were selected 
using a stratified, multistage cluster design. In the first 
stage, the primary sampling units (PSUs), consisting 
of counties or groups of counties, were selected. In the 
second stage, smaller areas, called Enumeration Districts 
(EDs), were selected from each sampled PSU. Finally, 
from selected EDs, clusters of four households, called 
segments, were selected for interview. At each stage, 
the selection was done proportionate to population 
size in order to create a self-weighting sample. The 
final sample was augmented to account for households 
constructed after the decennial Census. Within each 
sampled household, the U.S. Census Bureau interviewer 
attempts to interview all household members age 12 and 
older to determine whether they had been victimized 
by the measured crimes during the 6 months preceding 
the interview. 


The first NCVS interview with a housing unit is 
conducted in person. Subsequent interviews are conducted 
by telephone, if possible. About 80,000 persons age 12 
and older are interviewed each 6 months. Households 
remain in the sample for 3 years and are interviewed 
seven times at 6-month intervals. Since the survey’s 
inception, the initial interview at each sample unit has 
been used only to bound future interviews to establish 
a time frame to avoid duplication of crimes uncovered 
in these subsequent interviews. Beginning in 2006, data 
from the initial interview have been adjusted to account 
for the effects of bounding and have been included in the 
survey estimates. After a household has been interviewed 
its seventh time, it is replaced by a new sample household. 
In 2013, the household response rate was about 84 percent 
and the completion rate for persons within households 
was about 88 percent. Weights were developed to permit 
estimates for the total U.S. population 12 years and older. 

Further information on the NCVS may be obtained from 

Rachel E. Morgan 
Victimization Statistics Branch 
Bureau of Justice Statistics 
rachel.morgan@usdoi.gov 
http://www.bis.gov/ 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Consumer Price Indexes 

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) represents changes 
in prices of all goods and services purchased for 
consumption by urban households. Indexes are 
available for two population groups: a CPI for All 
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and a CPI for Urban Wage 
Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Unless otherwise 
specified, data are adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U. 
These values are frequently adjusted to a school-year basis 
by averaging the July through June figures. Price indexes 
are available for the United States, the four Census 
regions, size of city, cross-classifications of regions and 
size classes, and 26 local areas. The major uses of the CPI 
include as an economic indicator, as a deflator of other 
economic series, and as a means of adjusting income. 

Also available is the Consumer Price Index research series 
using current methods (CPI-U-RS), which presents an 
estimate of the CPI-U from 1978 to the present that 
incorporates most of the improvements that the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics has made over that time span into 
the entire series. The historical price index series of the 
CPI-U does not reflect these changes, though these 
changes do make the present and future CPI more 
accurate. The limitations of the CPI-U-RS include 
considerable uncertainty surrounding the magnitude of 
the adjustments and the several improvements in the CPI 
that have not been incorporated into the CPI-U-RS for 
various reasons. Nonetheless, the CPI-U-RS can serve as a 
valuable proxy for researchers needing a historical estimate 
of inflation using current methods. 


260 The Condition of Education 2015 


Further information on consumer price indexes may be 
obtained from 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 
U.S. Department of Labor 
2 Massachusetts Avenue NE 
Washington, DC 20212 
http://www.bls.gov/cpi 

Employment and Unemployment Surveys 

Statistics on the employment and unemployment 
status of the population and related data are compiled 
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) using data 
from the Current Population Survey (CPS) (see below) 
and other surveys. The Current Population Survey, 
a monthly household survey conducted by the U.S. 

Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
provides a comprehensive body of information on the 
employment and unemployment experience of the nation’s 
population, classified by age, sex, race, and various 
other characteristics. 

Further information on unemployment surveys may be 
obtained from 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 
U.S. Department of Labor 
2 Massachusetts Avenue NE 
Washington, DC 20212 
cpsinfo@bls.gov 

http://www.bls.gov/bls/employment.htm 

Census Bureau 

American Community Survey (ACS) 

The Census Bureau introduced the American 
Community Survey (ACS) in 1996. Fully implemented in 
2005, it provides a large monthly sample of demographic, 
socioeconomic, and housing data comparable in content 
to the Long Forms of the Decennial Census up to and 
including the 2000 long form. Aggregated over time, 
these data will serve as a replacement for the Long Form 
of the Decennial Census. The survey includes questions 
mandated by federal law, federal regulations, and 
court decisions. 

Since 2011, the survey has been mailed to approximately 
295,000 addresses in the United States and Puerto Rico 
each month, or about 3.5 million addresses annually. A 
larger proportion of addresses in small governmental units 
(e.g., American Indian reservations, small counties, and 
towns) also receive the survey. The monthly sample size 
is designed to approximate the ratio used in the 2000 
Census, which requires more intensive distribution in 
these areas. The ACS covers the U.S. resident population, 
which includes the entire civilian, noninstitutionalized 
population; incarcerated persons; institutionalized 
persons; and the active duty military who are in the 


United States. In 2006, the ACS began interviewing 
residents in group quarter facilities. Institutionalized 
group quarters include adult and juvenile correctional 
facilities, nursing facilities, and other health care facilities. 
Noninstitutionalized group quarters include college 
and university housing, military barracks, and other 
noninstitutional facilities such as workers and religious 
group quarters and temporary shelters for the homeless. 

National-level data from the ACS are available from 
2000 onward. The ACS produces 1-year estimates for 
jurisdictions with populations of 65,000 and over, 3-year 
estimates for jurisdictions with populations of 20,000 
or over, and 5-year estimates for jurisdictions with 
smaller populations. 

The 2012 ACS 1-year estimates represented data collected 
between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012; the 
2010-12 ACS 3-year estimates represented data collected 
between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012; and 
the 2008-12 ACS 5-year estimates represented data 
collected between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 
2012. Similarly, the 2013 1-year estimates used data 
collected between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 
2013; the 2013 3-year estimates used data collected 
between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013; and 
the 2013 5-year estimates used data collected between 
January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013. 

Further information about the ACS is available at 
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ . 

Current Population Survey 

The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly 
survey of about 60,000 households conducted by the U.S. 
Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 
CPS is the primary source of information of labor force 
statistics for the U.S. noninstitutionalized population 
(e.g., excludes military personnel and their families 
living on bases and inmates of correctional institutions). 

In addition, supplemental questionnaires are used to 
provide further information about the U.S. population. 
Specifically, in October, detailed questions regarding 
school enrollment and school characteristics are asked. In 
March, detailed questions regarding income are asked. 

The current sample design, introduced in July 2001, 
includes about 72,000 households. Each month about 
58,900 of the 72,000 households are eligible for interview, 
and of those, 7 to 10 percent are not interviewed because 
of temporary absence or unavailability. Information is 
obtained each month from those in the household who 
are 15 years of age and older, and demographic data are 
collected for children 0-14 years of age. In addition, 
supplemental questions regarding school enrollment are 
asked about eligible household members ages 3 and older. 
Prior to July 2001, data were collected in the CPS from 
about 50,000 dwelling units. The samples are initially 
selected based on the decennial census files and are 
periodically updated to reflect new housing construction. 


Guide to Sources 261 


A major redesign of the CPS was implemented in January 
1994 to improve the quality of the data collected. Survey 
questions were revised, new questions were added, and 
computer-assisted interviewing methods were used for 
the survey data collection. Further information about 
the redesign is available in Current Population Survey, 
October 1995: (School Enrollment Supplement) Technical 
Documentation at http://www.census.gov/prod/techdoc/ 
cps/cpsoct95.pdf . 

Caution should be used when comparing data from 
1994 through 2001 with data from 1993 and earlier. 

Data from 1994 through 2001 reflect 1990 census-based 
population controls, while data from 1993 and earlier 
reflect 1980 or earlier census-based population controls. 
Caution should also be used when comparing data from 
1994 through 2001 with data from 2002 onward, as data 
from 2002 reflect 2000 census-based controls. Changes 
in population controls generally have relatively little 
impact on summary measures such as means, medians, 
and percentage distributions. They can have a significant 
impact on population counts. For example, use of the 
1990 census-based population control resulted in about 
a 1 percent increase in the civilian noninstitutional 
population and in the number of families and households. 
Thus, estimates of levels for data collected in 1994 and 
later years will differ from those for earlier years by more 
than what could be attributed to actual changes in the 
population. These differences could be disproportionately 
greater for certain subpopulation groups than for the 
total population. 

Beginning in 2003, race/ethnicity questions expanded 
to include information on people of two or more races. 
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander data are collected 
separately from Asian data. The questions have also been 
worded to make it clear that self-reported data on race/ 
ethnicity should reflect the race/ethnicity with which the 
responder identifies, rather than what may be written in 
official documentation. 

The estimation procedure employed for monthly CPS 
data involves inflating weighted sample results to 
independent estimates of characteristics of the civilian 
noninstitutional population in the United States by age, 
sex, and race. These independent estimates are based on 
statistics from decennial censuses; statistics on births, 
deaths, immigration, and emigration; and statistics on the 
population in the armed services. Generalized standard 
error tables are provided in the Current Population 
Reports; methods for deriving standard errors can be 
found within the CPS technical documentation at 
http://www.census.gov/cps/methodologv/techdocs.html . 
The CPS data are subject to both nonsampling and 
sampling errors. 

Prior to 2009, standard errors were estimated using the 
generalized variance function. The generalized variance 
function is a simple model that expressed the variance 
as a function of the expected value of a survey estimate. 


Beginning with March 2009 CPS data, standard errors 
were estimated using replicate weight methodology. Those 
interested in using CPS household-level supplement 
replicate weights to calculate variances may refer to 
Estimating Current Population Survey (CPS) Household- 
Level Supplement Variances Using Replicate Weights 
at http://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/pub/cps/supps/ 
HH-level Use of the Public Use Replicate Weight 
File.doc . 

Further information on CPS may be obtained from 

Education and Social Stratification Branch 
Population Division 
Census Bureau 

U.S. Department of Commerce 
4600 Silver Hill Road 
Washington, DC 20233 
http://www.census.gov/cps 

Dropouts 

Each October, the Current Population Survey (CPS) 
includes supplemental questions on the enrollment 
status of the population ages 3 years and over as part of 
the monthly basic survey on labor force participation. 

In addition to gathering the information on school 
enrollment, with the limitations on accuracy as noted 
below under “School Enrollment,” the survey data permit 
calculations of dropout rates. Both status and event 
dropout rates are tabulated from the October CPS. Event 
rates describe the proportion of students who leave school 
each year without completing a high school program. 
Status rates provide cumulative data on dropouts among 
all young adults within a specified age range. Status 
rates are higher than event rates because they include all 
dropouts ages 16 through 24, regardless of when they last 
attended school. 

In addition to other survey limitations, dropout rates 
may be affected by survey coverage and exclusion of 
the institutionalized population. The incarcerated 
population has grown more rapidly and has a higher 
dropout rate than the general population. Dropout rates 
for the total population might be higher than those 
for the noninstitutionalized population if the prison 
and jail populations were included in the dropout rate 
calculations. On the other hand, if military personnel, 
who tend to be high school graduates, were included, it 
might offset some or all of the impact from the theoretical 
inclusion of the jail and prison population. 

Another area of concern with tabulations involving young 
people in household surveys is the relatively low coverage 
ratio compared to older age groups. CPS undercoverage 
results from missed housing units and missed people 
within sample households. Overall CPS undercoverage 
for October 2013 is estimated to be about 15 percent. 

CPS coverage varies with age, sex, and race. Generally, 
coverage is larger for females than for males and larger for 
non-Blacks than for Blacks. This differential coverage is a 


262 The Condition of Education 2015 


general problem for most household-based surveys. Further 
information on CPS methodology may be found in the 
technical documentation at http://www.census.gov/cps . 

Further information on the calculation of dropouts and 
dropout rates may be obtained from Trends in High 
School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 
1972—2009 (NCES 2012-006) at http://nces.ed.gov/ 
pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012006 or by contacting 

Chris Chapman 
Sample Surveys Division 
Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW 
Washington, DC 20006 
chris.chapman@ed.gov 

Educational Attainment 

Reports documenting educational attainment are 
produced by the Census Bureau using March CPS 
supplement (Annual Social and Economic Supplement 
[ASEC]) results. The sample size for the 2013 ASEC 
supplement (including basic CPS) was about 99,000 
households. The results were released in Educational 
Attainment in the United States: 2013; the tables may be 
downloaded at http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/ 
education/data/cps/20 1 3/ tables.html . The sample size 
for the 2014 ASEC supplement (including basic CPS) 
was about 98,000 households. The results were released 
in Educational Attainment in the United States: 2014; the 
tables may be downloaded at http://www.census.gov/hhes/ 
socdemo/ education/data/cps/20 14/tables, html . 

In addition to the general constraints of CPS, some 
data indicate that the respondents have a tendency 
to overestimate the educational level of members of 
their household. Some inaccuracy is due to a lack of 
the respondent’s knowledge of the exact educational 
attainment of each household member and the hesitancy to 
acknowledge anything less than a high school education. 
Another cause of nonsampling variability is the change in 
the numbers in the armed services over the years. 

Further information on CPS’s educational attainment 
data may be obtained from 

Education and Social Stratification Branch 
Census Bureau 

U.S. Department of Commerce 
4600 Silver Hill Road 
Washington, DC 20233 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education 

School Enrollment 

Each October, the Current Population Survey (CPS) 
includes supplemental questions on the enrollment status 
of the population ages 3 years and over. Prior to 2001, the 
October supplement consisted of approximately 47,000 
interviewed households. Beginning with the October 


2001 supplement, the sample was expanded by 9,000 to 
a total of approximately 56,000 interviewed households. 
The main sources of nonsampling variability in the 
responses to the supplement are those inherent in the 
survey instrument. The question of current enrollment 
may not be answered accurately for various reasons. Some 
respondents may not know current grade information 
for every student in the household, a problem especially 
prevalent for households with members in college or in 
nursery school. Confusion over college credits or hours 
taken by a student may make it difficult to determine the 
year in which the student is enrolled. Problems may occur 
with the definition of nursery school (a group or class 
organized to provide educational experiences for children) 
where respondents’ interpretations of “educational 
experiences” vary. 

For the October 2013 basic CPS, the household-level 
nonresponse rate was 9.86 percent. The person-level 
nonresponse rate for the school enrollment supplement 
was an additional 8.0 percent. Since the basic CPS 
nonresponse rate is a household-level rate and the school 
enrollment supplement nonresponse rate is a person- 
level rate, these rates cannot be combined to derive an 
overall nonresponse rate. Nonresponding households 
may have fewer persons than interviewed ones, so 
combining these rates may lead to an overestimate of the 
true overall nonresponse rate for persons for the school 
enrollment supplement. 

Further information on CPS methodology may be 
obtained from http://www.census.gov/cps . 

Further information on the CPS School Enrollment 
Supplement may be obtained from 

Education and Social Stratification Branch 
Census Bureau 

U.S. Department of Commerce 
4600 Silver Hill Road 
Washington, DC 20233 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/school/index.html 

Decennial Census, Population Estimates, 
and Population Projections 

The decennial census is a universe survey mandated 
by the U.S. Constitution. It is a questionnaire sent to 
every household in the country, and it is composed of 
seven questions about the household and its members 
(name, sex, age, relationship, Hispanic origin, race, and 
whether the housing unit is owned or rented). The Census 
Bureau also produces annual estimates of the resident 
population by demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, 
and Hispanic origin) for the nation, states, and counties, 
as well as national and state projections for the resident 
population. The reference date for population estimates 
is July 1 of the given year. With each new issue of July 
1 estimates, the Census Bureau revises estimates for 
each year back to the last census. Previously published 
estimates are superseded and archived. 


Guide to Sources 263 


Census respondents self-report race and ethnicity. The race 
questions on the 1990 and 2000 censuses differed in some 
significant ways. In 1990, the respondent was instructed 
to select the one race “that the respondent considers 
himself/herself to be,” whereas in 2000, the respondent 
could select one or more races that the person considered 
himself or herself to be. American Indian, Eskimo, and 
Aleut were three separate race categories in 1990; in 2000, 
the American Indian and Alaska Native categories were 
combined, with an option to write in a tribal affiliation. 
This write-in option was provided only for the American 
Indian category in 1990. There was a combined Asian and 
Pacific Islander race category in 1990, but the groups were 
separated into two categories in 2000. 

The census question on ethnicity asks whether the 
respondent is of Hispanic origin, regardless of the race 
option(s) selected; thus, persons of Hispanic origin may 
be of any race. In the 2000 census, respondents were 
first asked, “Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?” 
and then given the following options: No, not Spanish/ 
Hispanic/Latino; Yes, Puerto Rican; Yes, Mexican, 
Mexican American, Chicano; Yes, Cuban; and Yes, 
other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino (with space to print the 
specific group). In the 2010 census, respondents were 
asked “Is this person of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish 
origin?” The options given were No, not of Hispanic, 
Latino, or Spanish origin; Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., 
Chicano; Yes, Puerto Rican; Yes, Cuban; and Yes, 
another other Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin — along 
with instructions to print “Argentinean, Colombian, 
Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so 
on” in a specific box. 

The 2000 and 2010 censuses each asked the respondent 
“What is this person’s race?” and allowed the respondent 
to select one or more options. The options provided were 
largely the same in both the 2000 and 2010 censuses: 
White; Black, African American, or Negro; American 
Indian or Alaska Native (with space to print the name of 
enrolled or principal tribe); Asian Indian; Japanese; Native 
Hawaiian; Chinese; Korean; Guamanian or Chamorro; 
Filipino; Vietnamese; Samoan; Other Asian; Other Pacific 
Islander; and Some other race. The last three options 
included space to print the specific race. Two significant 
differences between the 2000 and 2010 census questions 
on race were that no race examples were provided for the 
“Other Asian” and “Other Pacific Islander” responses in 
2000, whereas the race examples of “Hmong, Laotian, 
Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on” and “Fijian, 
Tongan, and so on,” were provided for the “Other Asian” 
and “Other Pacific Islander” responses, respectively, 
in 2010. 


The census population estimates program modified the 
enumerated population from the 2010 census to produce 
the population estimates base for 2010 and onward. As 
part of the modification, the Census Bureau recoded the 
“Some other race” responses from the 2010 census to 
one or more of the five OMB race categories used in the 
estimates program (for more information, see 
http://www.census.gov/popest/methodology/2Q12-nat-st- 
co-meth.pdf) . 

Further information on the decennial census may be 
obtained from http://www.census.gov . 

Survey of Income and Program 
Participation 

The main objective of the Survey of Income and 
Program Participation (SIPP) is to provide accurate 
and comprehensive information about the income and 
program participation of individuals and households in 
the United States and about the principal determinants 
of income and program participation. SIPP offers 
detailed information on cash and noncash income on a 
subannual basis. The survey also collects data on taxes, 
assets, liabilities, and participation in government transfer 
programs. SIPP data allow the government to evaluate the 
effectiveness of federal, state, and local programs. 

The survey design is a continuous series of national 
panels, with sample size ranging from approximately 
14,000 to 36,700 interviewed households. The duration 
of each panel ranges from 2Vi to 4 years. The SIPP sample 
is a multistage-stratified sample of the U.S. civilian 
noninstitutionalized population. For the 1984-93 panels, 
a new panel of households was introduced each year in 
February. A 4-year panel was introduced in April 1996. 

A 2000 panel was introduced in February 2000 for two 
waves, but was cancelled after 8 months. A 216-year 
panel was introduced in February 2004 and is the first 
SIPP panel to use the 2000 decennial-based redesign of 
the sample. All household members ages 15 years and 
over are interviewed by self-response, if possible. Proxy 
response is permitted when household members are not 
available for interviewing. The latest panel was selected in 
September 2008. 

The SIPP content is built around a “core” of labor 
force, program participation, and income questions 
designed to measure the economic situation of people 
in the United States. These questions expand the data 
currently available on the distribution of cash and 
noncash income and are repeated at each interviewing 
wave. The survey uses a 4-month recall period, with 
approximately the same number of interviews being 
conducted in each month of the 4-month period for each 
wave. Interviews are conducted by personal visit and by 
decentralized telephone. 


264 The Condition of Education 2015 


The survey has been designed to also provide a broader 
context for analysis by adding questions on a variety of 
topics not covered in the core section. These questions are 
labeled “topical modules” and are assigned to particular 
interviewing waves of the survey. Topics covered by the 
modules include personal history, child care, wealth, 
program eligibility, child support, utilization and cost 
of healthcare, disability, school enrollment, taxes, and 
annual income. 

Further information on the SIPP may be obtained from 

Economics and Statistics Administration 
Census Bureau 

U.S. Department of Commerce 
4600 Silver Hill Road 
Washington, DC 20233 
http://www.census.gov/sipp/ intro.html 

My Brother's Keeper Initiative 

Established by President Obama in 2014, the My 
Brother’s Keeper Initiative is an interagency effort to 
improve measurably the expected educational and life 
outcomes for and address the persistent opportunity gaps 
faced by boys and young men of color. The Initiative 
established a Task Force to develop a coordinated federal 
effort to identify the public and private efforts that are 
working and how to expand upon them. 

The My Brother’s Keeper Task Force and the Federal 
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics have 
collected federal statistics on a number of national level 
indicators to provide an initial snapshot of young people’s 
well-being across multiple domains, including health, 
nutrition, poverty, education, economic opportunity, 
criminal justice and more. A selection of these data may 
be accessed at http://mbk.ed.gov/data/ . 

Further information about the My Brother’s Keeper 
Initiative may be obtained from 

https: // w ww.whitehouse. gov/my-brothers-keeper 

http://mbk.ed.gov/ 

http://mbk.ed.gov/data/ 

Other Organization Sources 

International Association for the 
Evaluation of Educational Achievement 

The International Association for the Evaluation 
of Educational Achievement (lEA) is composed of 
governmental research centers and national research 
institutions around the world whose aim is to investigate 
education problems common among countries. Since 
its inception in 1958, the lEA has conducted more 
than 30 research studies of cross-national achievement. 
The regular cycle of studies encompasses learning 
in basic school subjects. Examples are the Trends in 
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 


and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 
(PIRLS). lEA projects also include studies of particular 
interest to lEA members, such as the TIMSS 1999 Video 
Study of Mathematics and Science Teaching, the Civic 
Education Study, and studies on information technology 
in education. 

The international bodies that coordinate international 
assessments vary in the labels they apply to participating 
education systems, most of which are countries. lEA 
differentiates between lEA members, which lEA refers 
to as “countries” in all cases, and “benchmarking 
participants.” lEA members include countries such as the 
United States and Ireland, as well as subnational entities 
such as England and Scotland (which are both part of the 
United Kingdom), the Flemish community of Belgium, 
and Hong Kong-CHN (which is a Special Administrative 
Region of China). lEA benchmarking participants are 
all subnational entities and include Canadian provinces, 
U.S. states, and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates 
(among others). Benchmarking participants, like the 
participating countries, are given the opportunity to assess 
the comparative international standing of their students’ 
achievement and to view their curriculum and instruction 
in an international context. Subnational entities that 
participated as benchmarking participants are excluded 
from this indicator’s analysis. 

Some lEA studies, such as TIMSS and PIRLS, include an 
assessment portion as well as contextual questionnaires 
to collect information about students’ home and school 
experiences. The TIMSS and PIRLS scales, including 
the scale averages and standard deviations, are designed 
to remain constant from assessment to assessment so that 
education systems (including countries and subnational 
education systems) can compare their scores over time, 
as well as compare their scores directly with the scores 
of other education systems. Although each scale was 
created to have a mean of 500 and a standard deviation 
of 100, the subject matter and the level of difficulty of 
items necessarily differ by grade, subject, and domain/ 
dimension. Therefore, direct comparisons between scores 
across grades, subjects, and different domain/dimension 
types should not be made. 

Further information on the International Association 
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement may be 
obtained from http://www.iea.nl . 

Trends in International Mathematics and 
Science Study 

The Trends in International Mathematics and 
Science Study (TIMSS, formerly known as the Third 
International Mathematics and Science Study) provides 
reliable and timely data on the mathematics and science 
achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-graders compared 
with that of their peers in other countries. TIMSS is on 
a 4-year cycle, with data collection occurring in 1995, 

1999 (eighth grade only), 2003, 2007, and 2011. In 
2011, a total of 77 education systems, including 63 lEA 


Guide to Sources 265 


members and 14 benchmarking participants, participated 
in TIMSS. The next TIMSS data collection is scheduled 
for 2015. TIMSS collects information through 
mathematics and science assessments and questionnaires. 
The questionnaires request information to help provide 
a context for student performance, focusing on such 
topics as students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning 
mathematics and science, what students do as part of their 
mathematics and science lessons, students’ completion of 
homework, and their lives both in and outside of school; 
teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness for teaching 
mathematics and science topics, teaching assignments, 
class size and organization, instructional content and 
practices, and participation in professional development 
activities; and principals’ viewpoints on policy and 
budget responsibilities, curriculum and instruction 
issues, and student behavior, as well as descriptions of 
the organization of schools and courses. The assessments 
and questionnaires are designed to specifications in a 
guiding framework. The TIMSS framework describes 
the mathematics and science content to be assessed and 
provides grade-specific objectives, an overview of the 
assessment design, and guidelines for item development. 

Progress in International Reading 
Literaoy Study 

The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 
(PIRLS) provides reliable and timely data on the reading 
literacy of U.S. fourth-graders compared with that of their 
peers in other countries. PIRLS is on a 5-year cycle, with 
data having been collected in 2001, 2006, and 2011. In 
2011, a total of 57 education systems, including 48 lEA 
members and 9 benchmarking participants, participated 
in PIRLS. The next PIRLS data collection is scheduled 
for 2016. PIRLS collects information through a reading 
literacy assessment and questionnaires that help to provide 
a context for student performance. Questionnaires are 
administered to collect information about students’ 
home and school experiences in learning to read. A 
student questionnaire addresses students’ attitudes 
towards reading and their reading habits. In addition, 
questionnaires are given to students’ teachers and school 
principals to gather information about students’ school 
experiences in developing reading literacy. In countries 
other than the United States, a parent questionnaire is 
also administered. The assessments and questionnaires 
are designed to specifications in a guiding framework. 

The PIRLS framework describes the reading content to be 
assessed and provides objectives specific to fourth grade, 
an overview of the assessment design, and guidelines for 
item development. 

TIMSS and PIRLS Sampling and 
Response Rates 

It is not feasible to assess every fourth- or eighth- 
grade student in the United States. As is done in all 
participating countries and other education systems. 


representative samples of students are selected. The 
sample design employed by TIMSS and PIRLS in 2011 
is generally referred to as a two-stage stratified cluster 
sample. In the first stage of sampling, individual schools 
were selected with a probability proportionate to size 
(PPS) approach, which means that the probability is 
proportional to the estimated number of students enrolled 
in the target grade. In the second stage of sampling, intact 
classrooms were selected within sampled schools. 

TIMSS and PIRLS guidelines call for a minimum of 
150 schools to be sampled, with a minimum of 4,000 
students assessed. The basic sample design of one 
classroom per school was designed to yield a total sample 
of approximately 4,500 students per population. 

About 23,000 students in almost 900 schools across the 
United States participated in the 2011 TIMSS, joining 
600,000 other student participants around the world. 
Because the Progress in International Reading Literacy 
Study (PIRLS) was also administered at grade 4 in spring 
2011, TIMSS and PIRLS in the United States were 
administered in the same schools to the extent feasible. 
Students took either TIMSS or PIRLS on the day of the 
assessments. About 13,000 U.S. students participated 
in PIRLS in 2011, joining 300,000 other student 
participants around the world. Accommodations were not 
provided for students with disabilities or students who 
were unable to read or speak the language of the test. 
These students were excluded from the sample. The lEA 
requirement is that the overall exclusion rate, which is 
composed of exclusions of schools and students, should 
not exceed more than 5 percent of the national desired 
target population. 

In order to minimize the potential for response biases, the 
lEA developed participation or response rate standards 
that apply to all participating education systems and 
govern whether or not an education system’s data are 
included in the TIMSS or PIRLS international datasets 
and the way in which its statistics are presented in the 
international reports. These standards were set using 
composites of response rates at the school, classroom, and 
student and teacher levels. Response rates were calculated 
with and without the inclusion of substitute schools that 
were selected to replace schools refusing to participate. 

In TIMSS 2011 at grade 4 in the United States, the 
weighted school participation rate was 79 percent before 
the use of substitute schools and 84 percent after the use 
of replacement schools; the weighted student response 
rate was 95 percent. In TIMSS 2011 at grade 8 in the 
United States, the weighted school participation rate 
was 87 percent before the use of substitute schools and 
87 percent after the use of replacement schools; the 
weighted student response rate was 94 percent. In the 
2011 PIRLS administered in the United States, the 
weighted school participation rate was 80 percent before 
the use of substitute schools and 85 percent after the use 
of replacement schools; the weighted student response rate 
was 96 percent. 


266 The Condition of Education 2015 


Further information on the TIMSS study may be 
obtained from 

Stephen Provasnik 
Assessments Division 
International Assessment Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW, Room 9034 
Washington, DC 20006 
(202) 502-7480 
stephen.provasnik@ed.gov 
http://nces.ed.gov/timss 
http://www.iea.nl/timss 2011.html 

Further information on the PIRLS study may be 
obtained from 

Sheila Thompson 
Assessments Division 
International Assessment Branch 
National Center for Education Statistics 
1990 K Street NW, Room 9031 
Washington, DC 20006 
(202) 502-7425 

sheila.thompson@ed.gov 
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/ 
http://www.iea.nl/pirls 2011.html 

Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development 

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD) publishes analyses of national 
policies and survey data in education, training, and 
economics in OECD and partner countries. Newer 
studies include student survey data on financial literacy 
and on digital literacy. 

Education at a Glance (EAG) 

To highlight current education issues and create a set 
of comparative education indicators that represent 
key features of education systems, OECD initiated 
the Indicators of Education Systems (INES) project 
and charged the Centre for Educational Research and 
Innovation (CERI) with developing the cross-national 
indicators for it. The development of these indicators 
involved representatives of the OECD countries and the 
OECD Secretariat. Improvements in data quality and 
comparability among OECD countries have resulted from 
the country-to-country interaction sponsored through the 
INES project. The most recent publication in this series is 
Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators (EAG). 

The 2014 EAG featured data on the 34 OECD countries 
(Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, 
Japan, the Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, 
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, 

Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, 


Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the 
United States); two partner countries that participate 
in INES (Brazil and the Russian Federation); and the 
other partner countries that do not participate in INES 
(Argentina, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Latvia, 
Saudi Arabia, and South Africa). 

The OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative 
Education Statistics: Concepts, Standards, Definitions, and 
Classifications provides countries with specific guidance 
on how to prepare information for OECD education 
surveys; facilitates countries’ understanding of OECD 
indicators and their use in policy analysis; and provides a 
reference for collecting and assimilating educational data. 
Chapter 7 of the OECD Handbook for Internationally 
Comparative Education Statistics contains a discussion 
of data quality issues. Users should examine footnotes 
carefully to recognize some of the data limitations. 

Further information on international education statistics 
may be obtained from 

Andreas Schleicher 

Director for the Directorate of Education and Skills 
and Special Advisor on Education Policy 
to the OECD’s Secretary General 
OECD Directorate for Education and Skills 
2, rue Andre Pascal 
75775 Paris CEDEX 16 
France 

andreas.schleicher@oecd.org 

http://www.oecd.org 

Program for International Student 
Assessment 

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 
is a system of international assessments that focuses on 
15-year-olds’ capabilities in reading literacy, mathematics 
literacy, and science literacy. PISA also includes measures 
of general, or cross-curricular, competencies such as 
learning strategies. PISA emphasizes functional skills that 
students have acquired as they near the end of mandatory 
schooling. PISA is organized by the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 
an intergovernmental organization of industrialized 
countries, and was administered for the first time 
in 2000, when 43 education systems participated. 

In 2003, 41 education systems participated in the 
assessment; in 2006, 57 education systems (30 OECD 
member countries and 27 nonmember countries 
or education systems) participated; and in 2009, 

65 education systems (34 OECD member countries 
and 31 nonmember countries or education systems) 
participated. (An additional nine education systems 
administered PISA 2009 in 2010.) In PISA 2012, the 
most recent administration of PISA, 65 education systems 
(34 OECD member countries and 31 nonmember 
countries or education systems), as well as the U.S. states 
of Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts, participated. 


Guide to Sources 267 


PISA is a 2-hour paper-and-pencil exam. Assessment items 
include a combination of multiple-choice questions and 
open-ended questions that require students to develop 
their own response. PISA scores are reported on a scale 
that ranges from 0 to 1,000, with the OECD mean set 
at 500 and a standard deviation set at 100. In 2012, 
mathematics, science, and reading literacy were assessed 
primarily through a paper-and-pencil exam, and problem- 
solving was administered using a computer-based exam. 
Education systems could also participate in optional 
pencil-and-paper financial literacy assessments and 
computer-based mathematics and reading assessments. 

PISA is implemented on a 3-year cycle that began in 
2000. Each PISA assessment cycle focuses on one subject 
in particular, although all three subjects are assessed every 
3 years. In the first cycle, PISA 2000, reading literacy 
was the major focus, occupying roughly two-thirds of 
assessment time. For 2003, PISA focused on mathematics 
literacy as well as the ability of students to solve problems 
in real-life settings. In 2006, PISA focused on science 
literacy. In 2009, PISA focused on reading literacy again. 
In 2012, PISA focused on mathematics literacy. 

The intent of PISA reporting is to provide an overall 
description of performance in reading literacy, 
mathematics literacy, and science literacy every 3 years, 
and to provide a more detailed look at each domain in the 
years when it is the major focus. These cycles will allow 
education systems to compare changes in trends for each 
of the three subject areas over time. 


To implement PISA, each of the participating education 
systems scientifically draws a nationally representative 
sample of 15-year-olds, regardless of grade level. In the 
United States, about 6,100 students from 161 public and 
private schools took the PISA 2012 assessment. In the 
U.S. state education systems, about 1,700 students 
at 50 schools in Connecticut, about 1,900 students 
at 54 schools in Florida, and about 1,700 students at 
49 schools in Massachusetts took the 2012 assessment. 
PISA 2012 was only administered at public schools in the 
U.S. state education systems. 

In each education system, the assessment is translated into 
the primary language of instruction; in the United States, 
all materials are written in English. 

Further information on PISA may be obtained from 

Holly Xie 

Dana Kelly 

Assessments Division 

International Assessment Branch 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

holly.xie@ed.gov 

dana.kelly@ed.gov 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa 


268 The Condition of Education 2015 


This page intentionally left blank. 


Glossary 

A 

Achievement gap Occurs when one group of students 
outperforms another group, and the difference in average 
scores for the two groups is statistically significant (that is, 
larger than the margin of error). 

Achievement levels, NAEP Specific achievement levels 
for each subject area and grade to provide a context for 
interpreting student performance. At this time they are 
being used on a trial basis. 

Basic — denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and 
skills that are fundamental for proficient work at a 
given grade. 

Proficient — represents solid academic performance. 
Students reaching this level have demonstrated 
competency over challenging subject matter. 

Advanced — signifies superior performance. 

Associate’s degree A degree granted for the successful 
completion of a sub-baccalaureate program of studies, 
usually requiring at least 2 years (or equivalent) of full- 
time college-level study. This includes degrees granted in a 
cooperative or work-study program. 

Averaged freshman graduation rate (AFGR) A 
measure of the percentage of the incoming high school 
freshman class that graduates 4 years later. It is calculated 
by taking the number of graduates with a regular diploma 
and dividing that number by the estimated count of 
incoming freshman 4 years earlier, as reported through 
the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD). The estimated 
count of incoming freshman is the sum of the number of 
8th-graders 5 years earlier, the number of 9th-graders 
4 years earlier (when current seniors were freshman), 
and the number of lOth-graders 3 years earlier, divided 
by 3. The purpose of this averaging is to account for the 
high rate of grade retention in the freshman year, which 
adds 9th-grade repeaters from the previous year to the 
number of students in the incoming freshman class each 
year. Ungraded students are allocated to individual grades 
proportional to each state’s enrollment in those grades. 
The AFGR treats students who transfer out of a school 
or district in the same way as it treats students from that 
school or district who drop out. 

B 

Bachelor’s degree A degree granted for the successful 
completion of a baccalaureate program of studies, usually 
requiring at least 4 years (or equivalent) of full-time 
college-level study. This includes degrees granted in a 
cooperative or work-study program. 


c 

Certificate A formal award certifying the satisfactory 
completion of a postsecondary education program. 
Certificates can be awarded at any level of postsecondary 
education and include awards below the associate’s degree 
level. 

Charter school A school providing free public elementary 
and/or secondary education to eligible students under a 
specific charter granted by the state legislature or other 
appropriate authority, and designated by such authority to 
be a charter school. 

Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) The 

CIP is a taxonomic coding scheme that contains titles 
and descriptions of primarily postsecondary instructional 
programs. It was developed to facilitate NCES’ collection 
and reporting of postsecondary degree completions by 
major field of study using standard classifications that 
capture the majority of reportable program activity. It 
was originally published in 1980 and was revised in 1985, 
1990,2000, and 2010. 

College A postsecondary school that offers general or 
liberal arts education, usually leading to an associate’s, 
bachelor’s, master’s, or doctor’s degree. Junior colleges and 
community colleges are included under this terminology. 

Combined school A school that encompasses instruction 
at both the elementary and the secondary levels; includes 
schools starting with grade 6 or below and ending with 
grade 9 or above. 

Constant dollars Dollar amounts that have been 
adjusted by means of price and cost indexes to eliminate 
inflationary factors and allow direct comparison across 
years. 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) This price index measures 
the average change in the cost of a fixed market basket 
of goods and services purchased by consumers. Indexes 
vary for specific areas or regions, periods of time, major 
groups of consumer expenditures, and population groups. 
The CPI reflects spending patterns for two population 
groups: (1) all urban consumers and urban wage earners 
and (2) clerical workers. CPIs are calculated for both the 
calendar year and the school year using the U.S. All Items 
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The calendar year 
CPI is the same as the annual CPI-U. The school year 
CPI is calculated by adding the monthly CPI-U figures, 
beginning with July of the first year and ending with June 
of the following year, and then dividing that figure by 12. 

Current expenditures (elementary! secondary) The 
expenditures for operating local public schools, excluding 
capital outlay and interest on school debt. These 
expenditures include such items as salaries for school 
personnel, benefits, student transportation, school books 
and materials, and energy costs. Beginning in 1980-81, 
expenditures for state administration are excluded. 


270 The Condition of Education 2015 


Instruction expenditures Includes expenditures for 
activities related to the interaction between teacher and 
students. Includes salaries and benefits for teachers and 
instructional aides, textbooks, supplies, and purchased 
services such as instruction via television. Also included 
are tuition expenditures to other local education 
agencies. 

Administration expenditures Includes expenditures 
for school administration (i.e., the office of the 
principal, full-time department chairpersons, 
and graduation expenses), general administration 
(the superintendent and board of education and 
their immediate staff), and other support services 
expenditures. 

Transportation Includes expenditures for vehicle 
operation, monitoring, and vehicle servicing and 
maintenance. 

Food services Includes all expenditures associated 
with providing food to students and staff in a school 
or school district. The services include preparing and 
serving regular and incidental meals or snacks in 
connection with school activities, as well as the delivery 
of food to schools. 

Enterprise operations Includes expenditures for 
activities that are financed, at least in part, by user 
charges, similar to a private business. These include 
operations funded by sales of products or services, 
together with amounts for direct program support made 
by state education agencies for local school districts. 

D 

Default rate The percentage of loans that are in 
delinquency and have not been repaid according to the 
terms of the loan. According to the federal government, 
a federal student loan is in default if there has been no 
payment on the loan in 270 days. The Department of 
Education calculates a 2-year cohort default rate, which 
is the percentage of students who entered repayment in a 
given fiscal year (from October 1 to September 30) and 
then defaulted within the following two fiscal years. 

Degree-granting institutions Postsecondary institutions 
that are eligible for Title IV federal financial aid 
programs and grant an associate’s or higher degree. For an 
institution to be eligible to participate in Title IV financial 
aid programs it must offer a program of at least 300 clock 
hours in length, have accreditation recognized by the U.S. 
Department of Education, have been in business for at 
least 2 years, and have signed a participation agreement 
with the Department. 

Disabilities, children with Those children evaluated 
as having any of the following impairments and who, 
by reason thereof receive special education and related 
services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA) according to an Individualized Education 


Program (lEP), Individualized Family Service Plan 
(IFSP), or a services plan. 

Autism Having a developmental disability 
significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal 
communication and social interaction, generally 
evident before age 3, that adversely affects 
educational performance. Other characteristics 
often associated with autism are engagement in 
repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, 
resistance to environmental change or change in 
daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory 
experiences. A child is not considered autistic if the 
child’s educational performance is adversely affected 
primarily because of an emotional disturbance. 

Deaf-blindness Having concomitant hearing 
and visual impairments which cause such severe 
communication and other developmental and 
educational problems that the student cannot be 
accommodated in special education programs solely 
for deaf or blind students. 

Developmental delay Having developmental delays, 
as defined at the state level, and as measured by 
appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures in 
one or more of the following cognitive areas: physical 
development, cognitive development, communication 
development, social or emotional development, or 
adaptive development. 

Emotional disturbance Exhibiting one or more 
of the following characteristics over a long period 
of time, to a marked degree, and adversely affecting 
educational performance: an inability to learn which 
cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health 
factors; an inability to build or maintain satisfactory 
interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; 
inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under 
normal circumstances; a general pervasive mood of 
unhappiness or depression; or a tendency to develop 
physical symptoms or fears associated with personal 
or school problems. This term does not include 
children who are socially maladjusted, unless they 
also display one or more of the listed characteristics. 

Hearing impairment Having a hearing impairment, 
whether permanent or fluctuating, which adversely 
affects the student’s educational performance. It also 
includes a hearing impairment which is so severe 
that the student is impaired in processing linguistic 
information through hearing (with or without 
amplification) and which adversely affects educational 
performance. 

Intellectual disability Having significantly 
subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing 
concurrently with defects in adaptive behavior and 
manifested during the developmental period, which 
adversely affects the child’s educational performance. 


Glossary 271 


Multiple disabilities Having concomitant 
impairments (such as intellectually disabled-blind, 
intellectually disabled-orthopedically impaired, 
etc.), the combination of which causes such severe 
educational problems that the student cannot be 
accommodated in special education programs solely 
for one of the impairments. Term does not include 
deaf-blind students. 

Orthopedic impairment Having a severe orthopedic 
impairment which adversely affects a student’s 
educational performance. The term includes 
impairment resulting from congenital anomaly, disease, 
or other causes. 

Other health impairment Having limited strength, 
vitality, or alertness due to chronic or acute health 
problems, such as a heart condition, tuberculosis, 
rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cell anemia, 
hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia, 
or diabetes which adversely affect the student’s 
educational performance. 

Specific learning disability Having a disorder in 
one or more of the basic psychological processes 
involved in understanding or in using spoken or 
written language, which may manifest itself in an 
imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, 
spell, or do mathematical calculations. The term 
includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, 
brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, 
and developmental aphasia. The term does not 
include children who have learning problems which 
are primarily the result of visual, hearing, motor, or 
intellectual disabilities, or of environmental, cultural, 
or economic disadvantage. 

Speech or language impairment Having a 
communication disorder, such as stuttering, 
impaired articulation, language impairment, or voice 
impairment, which adversely affects the student’s 
educational performance. 

Traumatic brain injury Having an acquired injury 
to the brain caused by an external physical force, 
resulting in total or partial functional disability or 
psychosocial impairment or both, that adversely affects 
the student’s educational performance. The term 
applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in 
impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition; 
language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract 
thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory, 
perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; 
physical functions; information processing; and speech. 
The term does not apply to brain injuries that are 
congenital or degenerative or to brain injuries induced 
by birth trauma. 

Visual impairment Having a visual impairment 
which, even with correction, adversely affects the 
student’s educational performance. The term includes 
partially seeing and blind children. 


Doctor’s degree An earned degree that generally carries 
the title of Doctor. The Doctor of Philosophy degree 
(Ph.D.) is the highest academic degree and requires 
mastery within a field of knowledge and demonstrated 
ability to perform scholarly research. Other doctor’s 
degrees are awarded for fulfilling specialized requirements 
in professional fields, such as education (Ed.D.), musical 
arts (D.M.A.), business administration (D.B.A.), and 
engineering (D.Eng. or D.E.S.). Many doctor’s degrees 
in academic and professional fields require an earned 
master’s degree as a prerequisite. The doctor’s degree 
classification includes most degrees that NCES formerly 
classified as first-professional degrees. Such degrees are 
awarded in the fields of dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.), 
medicine (M.D.), optometry (O.D.), osteopathic medicine 
(D.O.), pharmacy (Pharm.D.), podiatry (D.P.M., Pod.D., 
or D.P.), veterinary medicine (D.V.M.), chiropractic (D.C. 
or D.C.M.), and law (L.L.B. or J.D.). 

Dropout The term is used to describe both the event 
of leaving school before completing high school and the 
status of an individual who is not in school and who is 
not a high school completer. High school completers 
include both graduates of school programs as well as those 
completing high school through equivalency programs 
such as the General Educational Development (GED) 
program. Transferring from a public school to a private 
school, for example, is not regarded as a dropout event. 

A person who drops out of school may later return and 
graduate but is called a “dropout” at the time he or she 
leaves school. Measures to describe these behaviors include 
the event dropout rate (or the closely related school 
persistence rate), the status dropout rate, and the high 
school completion rate. 

E 

Educational attainment The highest grade of regular 
school attended and completed. 

Educational attainment (Current Population Survey) 

This measure uses March CPS data to estimate the 
percentage of civilian, noninstitutionalized people who 
have achieved certain levels of educational attainment. 
Estimates of educational attainment do not differentiate 
between those who graduated from public schools, those 
who graduated from private schools, and those who 
earned a GED; these estimates also include individuals 
who earned their credential or completed their highest 
level of education outside of the United States. 

1972—1991 During this period, an individual’s 
educational attainment was considered to be his or her 
last fully completed year of school. Individuals who 
completed 12 years of schooling were deemed to be 
high school graduates, as were those who began but did 
not complete the first year of college. Respondents who 
completed 16 or more years of schooling were counted 
as college graduates. 


272 The Condition of Education 2015 


1992-present Beginning in 1992, CPS asked 
respondents to report their highest level of school 
completed or their highest degree received. This change 
means that some data collected before 1992 are not 
strictly comparable with data collected from 1992 
onward and that care must be taken when making 
comparisons across years. The revised survey question 
emphasizes credentials received rather than the last 
grade level attended or completed. The new categories 
include the following: 

• High school graduate, high school diploma, or the 
equivalent (e.g., GED) 

• Some college but no degree 

• Associate’s degree in college, occupational/ 
vocational program 

• Associate’s degree in college, academic program 
(e.g., A.A., A.S., A.A.S.) 

• Bachelor’s degree (e.g., B.A., A.B., B.S.) 

• Master’s degree (e.g., M.A., M.S., M.Eng., M.Ed., 
M.S.W., M.B.A.) 

• Professional school degree (e.g., M.D., D.D.S., 
D.V.M., LL.B.,J.D.) 

• Doctor’s degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.) 

Elementary school A school classified as elementary 
by state and local practice and composed of any span of 
grades not above grade 8. 

English language learner (ELE) An individual who, 
due to any of the reasons listed below, has sufficient 
difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding 
the English language to be denied the opportunity to 
learn successfully in classrooms where the language of 
instruction is English or to participate fully in the larger 
U.S. society. Such an individual (1) was not born in the 
United States or has a native language other than English; 
(2) comes from environments where a language other 
than English is dominant; or (3) is an American Indian 
or Alaska Native and comes from environments where a 
language other than English has had a significant impact 
on the individual’s level of English language proficiency. 

Expenditures, total For elementary/secondary schools, 
these include all charges for current outlays plus capital 
outlays and interest on school debt. For degree-granting 
institutions, these include current outlays plus capital 
outlays. For government, these include charges net 
of recoveries and other correcting transactions other 
than for retirement of debt, investment in securities, 
extension of credit, or as agency transactions. Government 
expenditures include only external transactions, such 


as the provision of perquisites or other payments in 
kind. Aggregates for groups of governments exclude 
intergovernmental transactions among the governments. 

Expenditures per pupil Gharges incurred for a particular 
period of time divided by a student unit of measure, such 
as average daily attendance or fall enrollment. 

F 

Einancial aid Grants, loans, assistantships, scholarships, 
fellowships, tuition waivers, tuition discounts, veteran’s 
benefits, employer aid (tuition reimbursement), and other 
monies (other than from relatives or friends) provided 
to students to help them meet expenses. Except where 
designated, includes Title IV subsidized and unsubsidized 
loans made directly to students. 

Eor-profit institution A private institution in which the 
individual(s) or agency in control receives compensation 
other than wages, rent, or other expenses for the 
assumption of risk. 

Eree or reduced-price lunch See National School 
Lunch Program. 

Eull-time enrollment The number of students enrolled 
in postsecondary education courses with total credit 
load equal to at least 75 percent of the normal full- 
time course load. At the undergraduate level, full-time 
enrollment typically includes students who have a credit 
load of 12 or more semester or quarter credits. At the 
postbaccalaureate level, full-time enrollment includes 
students who typically have a credit load of 9 or more 
semester or quarter credits, as well as other students who 
are considered full time by their institutions. 

Eull-time-equivalent (ETE) enrollment For 
postsecondary institutions, enrollment of full-time 
students, plus the full-time equivalent of part-time 
students. The full-time equivalent of the part-time 
students is estimated using different factors depending on 
the type and control of institution and level of student. 

G 

GED certificate This award is received following 
successful completion of the General Educational 
Development (GED) test. The GED program — sponsored 
by the GED Testing Service (a joint venture of the 
American Gouncil on Education and Pearson) — enables 
individuals to demonstrate that they have acquired a level 
of learning comparable to that of high school graduates. 
See also High school equivalency certificate. 


Glossary 273 


Geographic region One of the four regions of the United 
States used by the U.S. Census Bureau, as follows: 


Northeast 

Connecticut (CT) 
Maine (ME) 
Massachusetts (MA) 
New Hampshire (NH) 
New Jersey (NJ) 

New York (NY) 
Pennsylvania (PA) 
Rhode Island (RI) 
Vermont (VT) 


Midwest 

Illinois (IL) 

Indiana (IN) 

Iowa (lA) 

Kansas (KS) 
Michigan (MI) 
Minnesota (MN) 
Missouri (MO) 
Nebraska (NE) 
North Dakota (ND) 
Ohio (OH) 

South Dakota (SD) 
Wisconsin (WI) 


South 

Alabama (AL) 

Arkansas (AR) 

Delaware (DE) 

District of Columbia (DC) 
Florida (FL) 

Georgia (GA) 

Kentucky (KY) 

Louisiana (LA) 

Maryland (MD) 
Mississippi (MS) 

North Carolina (NC) 
Oklahoma (OK) 

South Carolina (SC) 
Tennessee (TN) 

Texas (TX) 

Virginia (VA) 

West Virginia (WV) 


West 

Alaska (AK) 
Arizona (AZ) 
California (CA) 
Colorado (CO) 
Hawaii (HI) 

Idaho (ID) 
Montana (MT) 
Nevada (NV) 

New Mexico (NM) 
Oregon (OR) 

Utah (UT) 
Washington (WA) 
Wyoming (WY) 


Graduate enrollment The number of students who are 
working towards a master’s or doctor’s degree and students 
who are in postbaccalaureate classes but not in degree 
programs. 


Gross domestic product (GDP) The total national 
output of goods and services valued at market prices. 
GDP can be viewed in terms of expenditure categories 
which include purchases of goods and services by 
consumers and government, gross private domestic 
investment, and net exports of goods and services. The 
goods and services included are largely those bought for 
final use (excluding illegal transactions) in the market 
economy. A number of inclusions, however, represent 
imputed values, the most important of which is rental 
value of owner-occupied housing. 


H 

High school completer An individual who has been 
awarded a high school diploma or an equivalent 
credential, including a General Educational Development 
(GED) certificate. 

High school diploma A formal document regulated 
by the state certifying the successful completion of a 
prescribed secondary school program of studies. In 
some states or communities, high school diplomas are 
differentiated by type, such as an academic diploma, a 
general diploma, or a vocational diploma. 

High school equivalency certificate A formal 
document certifying that an individual has met the state 
requirements for high school graduation equivalency by 
obtaining satisfactory scores on an approved examination 
and meeting other performance requirements (if any) set 
by a state education agency or other appropriate body. 

One particular version of this certificate is the General 
Educational Development (GED) test. The GED test 
is a comprehensive test used primarily to appraise the 
educational development of students who have not 
completed their formal high school education and 
who may earn a high school equivalency certificate by 
achieving satisfactory scores. GEDs are awarded by the 
states or other agencies, and the test is developed and 
distributed by the GED Testing Service (a joint venture of 
the American Council on Education and Pearson). 

Higher education institutions (basic classification and 
Carnegie classification) See Postsecondary institutions 
(basic classification by level) and Postsecondary 
institutions (Carnegie classification of degree-granting 
institutions). 

I 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 

IDEA is a federal law requiring services to children with 
disabilities throughout the nation. IDEA governs how 
states and public agencies provide early intervention, 
special education, and related services to eligible infants, 
toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Infants and 
toddlers with disabilities (birth-age 2) and their families 
receive early intervention services under IDEA, Part C. 
Children and youth (ages 3-21) receive special education 
and related services under IDEA, Part B. 

International Standard Classification of Education 
(ISCED) Used to compare educational systems in 
different countries. ISCED is the standard used by 
many countries to report education statistics to the 
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 
Organization (UNESCO) and the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 


274 The Condition of Education 2015 


ISCED divides educational systems into the following 
seven categories, based on six levels of education. 

ISCED Level 0 Education preceding the first level 
(early childhood education) usually begins at age 3, 

4, or 5 (sometimes earlier) and lasts from 1 to 3 years, 
when it is provided. In the United States, this level 
includes nursery school and kindergarten. 

ISCED Level 1 Education at the first level (primary 
or elementary education) usually begins at age 5, 6, or 
7 and continues for about 4 to 6 years. For the United 
States, the first level starts with 1st grade and ends with 
6th grade. 

ISCED Level 2 Education at the second level (lower 
secondary education) typically begins at about age 
11 or 12 and continues for about 2 to 6 years. For the 
United States, the second level starts with 7th grade 
and typically ends with 9th grade. Education at the 
lower secondary level continues the basic programs 
of the first level, although teaching is typically more 
subject focused, often using more specialized teachers 
who conduct classes in their field of specialization. 

The main criterion for distinguishing lower secondary 
education from primary education is whether programs 
begin to be organized in a more subject-oriented 
pattern, using more specialized teachers conducting 
classes in their field of specialization. If there is no 
clear breakpoint for this organizational change, lower 
secondary education is considered to begin at the end 
of 6 years of primary education. In countries with 
no clear division between lower secondary and upper 
secondary education, and where lower secondary 
education lasts for more than 3 years, only the first 
3 years following primary education are counted as 
lower secondary education. 

LSCED Level 3 Education at the third level (upper 
secondary education) typically begins at age 15 or 
16 and lasts for approximately 3 years. In the United 
States, the third level starts with 10th grade and ends 
with 12th grade. Upper secondary education is the final 
stage of secondary education in most OECD countries. 
Instruction is often organized along subject-matter 
lines, in contrast to the lower secondary level, and 
teachers typically must have a higher level, or more 
subject-specific, qualification. There are substantial 
differences in the typical duration of programs both 
across and between countries, ranging from 2 to 
5 years of schooling. The main criteria for classifications 
are (1) national boundaries between lower and upper 
secondary education and (2) admission into educational 
programs, which usually requires the completion 
of lower secondary education or a combination of 
basic education and life experience that demonstrates 
the ability to handle the subject matter in upper 
secondary schools. 


ISCED Level 4 Education at the fourth level 
(postsecondary nontertiary education) straddles the 
boundary between secondary and postsecondary 
education. This program of study, which is primarily 
vocational in nature, is generally taken after the 
completion of secondary school and typically lasts 
from 6 months to 2 years. Although the content of 
these programs may not be significantly more advanced 
than upper secondary programs, these programs serve 
to broaden the knowledge of participants who have 
already gained an upper secondary qualification. 

ISCED Level 5 Education at the fifth level (first 
stage of tertiary education) includes programs with 
more advanced content than those offered at the two 
previous levels. Entry into programs at the fifth level 
normally requires successful completion of either of the 
two previous levels. 

LSCED Level 5A Tertiary-type A programs 
provide an education that is largely theoretical and 
is intended to provide sufficient qualifications for 
gaining entry into advanced research programs 
and professions with high skill requirements. 

Entry into these programs normally requires the 
successful completion of an upper secondary 
education; admission is competitive in most cases. 
The minimum cumulative theoretical duration at 
this level is 3 years of full-time enrollment. In the 
United States, tertiary-type A programs include 
first university programs that last approximately 
4 years and lead to the award of a bachelor’s degree 
and second university programs that lead to a 
master’s degree. 

ISCED Level 5B Tertiary-type B programs are 
typically shorter than tertiary-type A programs and 
focus on practical, technical, or occupational skills 
for direct entry into the labor market, although 
they may cover some theoretical foundations in 
the respective programs. They have a minimum 
duration of 2 years of full-time enrollment at the 
tertiary level. In the United States, such programs 
are often provided at community colleges and lead 
to an associate’s degree. 

ISCED Level 6 Education at the sixth level (advanced 
research qualification) is provided in graduate and 
professional schools that generally require a university 
degree or diploma as a minimum condition for 
admission. Programs at this level lead to the award of 
an advanced, postgraduate degree, such as a Ph.D. The 
theoretical duration of these programs is 3 years of full- 
time enrollment in most countries (for a cumulative 
total of at least 7 years at levels five and six), although 
the length of the actual enrollment is often longer. 
Programs at this level are devoted to advanced study 
and original research. 


Glossary 275 


M 

Master’s degree A degree awarded for successful 
completion of a program generally requiring 1 or 2 years 
of full-time college-level study beyond the bachelor’s 
degree. One type of master’s degree, including the 
Master of Arts degree, or M.A., and the Master of 
Science degree, or M.S., is awarded in the liberal arts 
and sciences for advanced scholarship in a subject field or 
discipline and demonstrated ability to perform scholarly 
research. A second type of master’s degree is awarded for 
the completion of a professionally oriented program, for 
example, an M.Ed. in education, an M.B.A. in business 
administration, an M.F.A. in fine arts, an M.M. in 
music, an M.S.W. in social work, and an M.P.A. in public 
administration. Some master’s degrees — such as divinity 
degrees (M.Div. or M.H.L./Rav), which were formerly 
classified as “first-professional” — may require more than 
2 years of full-time study beyond the bachelor’s degree. 

N 

National School Lunch Program Established by 
President Truman in 1946, the program is a federally 
assisted meal program operated in public and private 
nonprofit schools and residential child care centers. To be 
eligible for free lunch, a student must be from a household 
with an income at or below 130 percent of the federal 
poverty guideline; to be eligible for reduced-price lunch, 
a student must be from a household with an income 
between 130 percent and 185 percent of the federal 
poverty guideline. 

Nonprofit institution A private institution in which 
the individual(s) or agency in control receives no 
compensation other than wages, rent, or other expenses 
for the assumption of risk. Nonprofit institutions may 
be either independent nonprofit (i.e., having no religious 
affiliation) or religiously affiliated. 

Nursery school An instructional program for groups of 
children during the year or years preceding kindergarten, 
which provides educational experiences under the 
direction of teachers. See also Prekindergarten. 

o 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD) An intergovernmental 
organization of industrialized countries that serves as 
a forum for member countries to cooperate in research 
and policy development on social and economic topics 
of common interest. In addition to member countries, 
partner countries contribute to the OECD’s work in a 
sustained and comprehensive manner. 


P 

Part-time enrollment The number of students enrolled 
in postsecondary education courses with a total credit load 
less than 75 percent of the normal full-time credit load. 

At the undergraduate level, part-time enrollment typically 
includes students who have a credit load of less than 
12 semester or quarter credits. At the postbaccalaureate 
level, part-time enrollment typically includes students who 
have a credit load of less than 9 semester or quarter credits. 

Postbaccalaureate enrollment The number of students 
working towards advanced degrees and of students 
enrolled in graduate-level classes but not enrolled in 
degree programs. See also Graduate enrollment. 

Postsecondary education The provision of formal 
instructional programs with a curriculum designed 
primarily for students who have completed the 
requirements for a high school diploma or equivalent. 

This includes programs of an academic, vocational, and 
continuing professional education purpose, and excludes 
avocational and adult basic education programs. 

Postsecondary institutions (basic classification 
by level) 

4-year institution An institution offering at least 
a 4-year program of college-level studies wholly or 
principally creditable toward a baccalaureate degree. 

2-year institution An institution offering at least 
a 2-year program of college-level studies which 
terminates in an associate degree or is principally 
creditable toward a baccalaureate degree. Data prior to 
1996 include some institutions that have a less-than- 
2-year program, but were designated as institutions 
of higher education in the Higher Education General 
Information Survey. 

Less-than-2-year institution An institution that 
offers programs of less than 2 years’ duration below 
the baccalaureate level. Includes occupational and 
vocational schools with programs that do not exceed 
1,800 contact hours. 

Postsecondary institutions (Carnegie classification of 
degree-granting institutions) 

Doctorate-granting Characterized by a significant 
level and breadth of activity in commitment to 
doctoral-level education as measured by the number of 
doctorate recipients and the diversity in doctoral-level 
program offerings. These institutions are assigned to 
one of the three subcategories listed below based on 
level of research activity (for more information on the 
research activity index used to assign institutions to the 
subcategories, see http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/) : 


276 The Condition of Education 2015 


Research university, very high Characterized by a 
very high level of research activity. 

Research university, high Characterized by a high 
level of research activity. 

Doctoral/research university Awarding at least 20 
doctor’s degrees per year, but not having a high level 
of research activity. 

Master’s Characterized by diverse postbaccalaureate 
programs but not engaged in significant doctoral-level 
education. 

Baccalaureate Characterized by primary emphasis on 
general undergraduate, baccalaureate-level education. 
Not significantly engaged in postbaccalaureate 
education. 

Special focus Baccalaureate or postbaccalaureate 
institution emphasizing one area (plus closely related 
specialties), such as business or engineering. The 
programmatic emphasis is measured by the percentage 
of degrees granted in the program area. 

Associate’s Institutions conferring at least 90 percent 
of their degrees and awards for work below the 
bachelor’s level. In NCES tables, excludes all 
institutions offering any 4-year programs leading to a 
bachelor’s degree. 

Tribal Colleges and universities that are members of 
the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, 
as identified in IPEDS Institutional Characteristics. 

Poverty The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money 
income thresholds that vary by family size and 
composition. A family, along with each individual in it, 
is considered poor if the family’s total income is less than 
that family’s threshold. The poverty thresholds do not 
vary geographically and are adjusted annually for inflation 
using the Consumer Price Index. The official poverty 
definition counts money income before taxes and does not 
include capital gains and noncash benefits (such as public 
housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). 

Prekindergarten Preprimary education for children 
typically ages 3-4 who have not yet entered kindergarten. 
It may offer a program of general education or special 
education and may be part of a collaborative effort with 
Head Start. 

Private institution An institution that is controlled by 
an individual or agency other than a state, a subdivision 
of a state, or the federal government, which is usually 
supported primarily by other than public funds, and the 
operation of whose program rests with other than publicly 
elected or appointed officials. 

Private nonprofit institution An institution in 
which the individual(s) or agency in control receives 
no compensation other than wages, rent, or other 


expenses for the assumption of risk. These include both 
independent nonprofit institutions and those affiliated 
with a religious organization. 

Private for-profit institution An institution in 
which the individual(s) or agency in control receives 
compensation other than wages, rent, or other expenses 
for the assumption of risk (e.g., proprietary schools). 

Private school Private elementary/secondary schools 
surveyed by the Private School Universe Survey (PSS) 
are assigned to one of three major categories (Catholic, 
other religious, or nonsectarian) and, within each major 
category, one of three subcategories based on the school’s 
religious affiliation provided by respondents. 

Catholic Schools categorized according to governance, 
provided by Catholic school respondents, into 
parochial, diocesan, and private schools. 

Other religious Schools that have a religious 
orientation or purpose but are not Roman Catholic. 
Other religious schools are categorized according 
to religious association membership, provided by 
respondents, into Conservative Christian, other 
affiliated, and unaffiliated schools. Conservative 
Christian schools are those “Other religious” schools 
with membership in at least one of four associations: 
Accelerated Christian Education, American 
Association of Christian Schools, Association of 
Christian Schools International, and Oral Roberts 
University Education Fellowship. Affiliated schools 
are those “Other religious” schools not classified 
as Conservative Christian with membership in at 
least 1 of 11 associations — Association of Christian 
Teachers and Schools, Christian Schools International, 
Evangelical Lutheran Education Association, Friends 
Council on Education, General Conference of the 
Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Islamic School League 
of America, National Association of Episcopal Schools, 
National Christian School Association, National 
Society for Hebrew Day Schools, Solomon Schechter 
Day Schools, and Southern Baptist Association of 
Christian Schools — or indicating membership in 
“other religious school associations.” Unaffiliated 
schools are those “Other religious” schools that have a 
religious orientation or purpose but are not classified as 
Conservative Christian or affiliated. 

Nonsectarian Schools that do not have a religious 
orientation or purpose and are categorized according 
to program emphasis, provided by respondents, into 
regular, special emphasis, and special education 
schools. Regular schools are those that have a regular 
elementary/secondary or early childhood program 
emphasis. Special emphasis schools are those that have 
a Montessori, vocational/technical, alternative, or 
special program emphasis. Special education schools 
are those that have a special education program 
emphasis. 


Glossary 277 


Property tax The sum of money collected from a tax 
levied against the value of property. 

Public school or institution A school or institution 
controlled and operated by publicly elected or appointed 
officials and deriving its primary support from public 
funds. 

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) indexes PPP exchange 
rates, or indexes, are the currency exchange rates that 
equalize the purchasing power of different currencies, 
meaning that when a given sum of money is converted 
into different currencies at the PPP exchange rates, it will 
buy the same basket of goods and services in all countries. 
PPP indexes are the rates of currency conversion that 
eliminate the difference in price levels among countries. 
Thus, when expenditures on gross domestic product 
(GDP) for different countries are converted into a 
common currency by means of PPP indexes, they are 
expressed at the same set of international prices, so that 
comparisons among countries reflect only differences in 
the volume of goods and services purchased. 

R 

Racial! ethnic group Classification indicating general 
racial or ethnic heritage. Race/ethnicity data are based 
on the Hispanic ethnic category and the race categories 
listed below (five single-race categories, plus the Two or 
more races category). Race categories exclude persons of 
Hispanic ethnicity unless otherwise noted. 

White A person having origins in any of the original 
peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. 

Black or African American A person having origins 
in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Used 
interchangeably with the shortened term Black. 

Hispanic or Latino A person of Cuban, Mexican, 
Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other 
Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. Used 
interchangeably with the shortened term Hispanic. 

Asian A person having origins in any of the original 
peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian 
subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, 
China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the 
Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. Prior to 
2010-11, the Common Core of Data (CCD) combined 
Asian and Pacific Islander categories. 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander A 

person having origins in any of the original peoples 
of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. 

Prior to 2010-11, the Common Core of Data (CCD) 
combined Asian and Pacific Islander categories. 

Used interchangeably with the shortened term 
Pacific Islander. 


American Indian or Alaska Native A person having 
origins in any of the original peoples of North and 
South America (including Central America), and who 
maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. 

Two or more races A person identifying himself or 
herself as of two or more of the following race groups: 
White, Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 
Islander, or American Indian or Alaska Native. Some, 
but not all, reporting districts use this category. “Two 
or more races” was introduced in the 2000 Census 
and became a regular category for data collection in 
the Current Population Survey (CPS) in 2003. The 
category is sometimes excluded from a historical 
series of data with constant categories. It is sometimes 
included within the category “Other.” 

Regular school A public elementary/secondary or charter 
school providing instruction and education services that 
does not focus primarily on special education, vocational/ 
technical education, or alternative education. 

Revenue All funds received from external sources, 
net of refunds, and correcting transactions. Noncash 
transactions, such as receipt of services, commodities, or 
other receipts in kind are excluded, as are funds received 
from the issuance of debt, liquidation of investments, and 
nonroutine sale of property. 

s 

Salary The total amount regularly paid or stipulated to 
be paid to an individual, before deductions, for personal 
services rendered while on the payroll of a business or 
organization. 

Secondary school A school comprising any span of 
grades beginning with the next grade following an 
elementary or middle school (usually 7, 8, or 9) and 
ending with or below grade 12. Both junior high schools 
and senior high schools are included. 

Student membership Student membership is an annual 
headcount of students enrolled in school on October 1 or 
the school day closest to that date. The Common Core 
of Data (CCD) allows a student to be reported for only a 
single school or agency. For example, a vocational school 
(identified as a “shared time” school) may provide classes 
for students from a number of districts and show no 
membership. 

T 

Traditional public school Publicly funded schools other 
than public charter schools. See also Public school or 
institution and Charter school. 

Tuition and fees A payment or charge for instruction 
or compensation for services, privileges, or the use of 
equipment, books, or other goods. Tuition may be 
charged per term, per course, or per credit. 


278 The Condition of Education 2015 


u 


Undergraduate students Students registered at an 
institution of postsecondary education who are working 
in a baccalaureate degree program or other formal 
program below the baccalaureate, such as an associate’s 
degree, vocational, or technical program. 


Glossary 279 


This page intentionally left blank. 




www.ed.gov 


ies.ed.gov